Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKERin the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Tagging

Mr. Desmond Swayne: How many prisoners have been released as part of the Government's tagging initiative; and what proportion has reoffended. [89210]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): According to the latest figures, as of 7 July 7,226 prisoners had been placed on home detention curfew since the scheme commenced. Of this total, fewer than 1 per cent had been charged with fresh offences committed while on curfew.

Mr. Swayne: Can releasing a prisoner who has served only six weeks of a custodial sentence of six months be described as being "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"?

Mr. Howarth: According to important early indications, the home detention curfew is a success. More

than 95 per cent. of those who have been discharged have completed their curfews successfully, or are still complying with them. The question that the hon. Gentleman needs to ask himself is this: can he suggest an alternative scheme that would produce comparable results? I suspect not—in which case, this scheme is a success. It is a qualified success at this stage, and we are still keeping an eye on it; but it is better for people to be released into the community under supervision, with some chance of modifying their offending behaviour, than for them simply to be let out with no such prospect.

Mr. Paul Flynn: As my hon. Friend says, the scheme has been a great success. One of its unexpected advantages is that there is now a surplus of places in open prisons. Would it not be a good idea to convert one of those prisons into a hostel for women prisoners, who normally pose a very low risk, so that they could lead more or less normal lives and have their young children with them? That would be a humane act.
Perhaps we could also follow the example of other countries, and allow a period of about a fortnight before young women with children need enter prison. That arrangement has been very successful elsewhere.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend's suggestion is, in fact, being considered. If there is any surplus capacity in the prison estate, some of it might well be suitable for women offenders.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: The Minister will be aware of the story that appeared over the weeekend—[Interruption.] It concerned a massive security leak—which is not a subject for frivolity—relating to prisoner records at Belmarsh. Among those whose details were leaked were prisoners who had been released early, including Patrick Magee.
Is it the case that, when Magee's release was authorised, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Home Secretary were fully aware of the contents of the records, and of the threats that Magee was alleged to have made, which appear in those computer records?

Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has ordered an inquiry into the leaking of the documents. As far as we know, however, it was not Patrick Magee who was named in them.

Miss Widdecombe: This question, then, remains. There was a terrorist, even allowing for the fact that the report was inaccurate about who it was, and his threats about what he would do on his release are fully detailed in the records. Were those threats known and taken into account when the decision to release that person was made?

Mr. Howarth: For reasons that the right hon. Lady, as a former prisons Minister, will understand, it would be inappropriate for me to answer that question from the Dispatch Box today. We will, however, ensure that the full facts are given to her in the form of a letter from my right hon. Friend in due course.

Passports

Mr. John Wilkinson: What estimate he has made of the compensation to be paid by his Department to British holidaymakers who are unable to travel abroad in 1999–2000 owing to the non-return of their passport by the Passport Agency. [89211]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Compensation payments average about £260. Between April and July, there have been 132 cases in which compensation claims have been received relating to missed travel dates.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is the Minister in any way changing his attitude? He will recall that, on the morning of 29 June, he told the British public over the airwaves that the crisis was all their fault: it was all their fault for panicking. By the afternoon of that day, the Home Secretary was saying at the Dispatch Box that he would pay compensation—and rightly so—to all whose holidays had been wrecked, and to business men who could not meet due travel dates.
Does the Minister think that the figure he has given represents genuinely fair compensation? Is £260 sufficient compensation for a wrecked holiday, or for the unquantifiable business lost by business men who could not meet their travel dates?

Mr. O'Brien: We always consider compensation claims in full.
The hon. Gentleman referred to what I was alleged to have said. He completely traduced what I said. I said no such thing; I did not blame everyone for what happened in the Passport Agency, and we have not sought to duck that responsibility.
Let me try to set the compensation issue in context. The agency has made compensation payments for many years. In the last financial year, it made 70 compensation payments. In 1997–98, it made 50 and, in 1996–97, it dealt with 88 compensation claims. It normally identifies the cost within a budget of 2p on the cost of a passport worth £21, which, in total, raises about £100,000. In terms of the claims that we have met so far, we are not even nearing that figure; therefore, the compensation claims that we will meet will be dealt with properly. They will be considered according to the normal arrangements, as they have been for many years. We will seek to ensure that, so far as we can, we continue to meet 99.99 per cent. of travel dates that people ask to us meet.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Could not the recent situation have been eased and future time wasting and bureaucracy avoided if we abandoned our rather idiosyncratic adherence to the requirement for passports for travel between this country and fellow European Union member states?

Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend will know that protecting our border controls was safeguarded as a fundamental principle by the Prime Minister at Amsterdam. We intend to ensure that we maintain border controls.

Mr. Richard Allan: The Minister must be aware that the public would be very angry if they found that they had to pay the full costs of this year's chaos at the Passport Agency without the contractors paying serious penalties. Therefore, does he agree that it is in the public interest for there to be full disclosure of any penalties that are paid by Siemens Business Systems in respect of its part in the Passport Agency problems? If such agreements are covered by commercial confidentiality, will he approach Siemens to ask it to forgo that confidentiality for the wider public interest?

Mr. O'Brien: The summary business case is already a public document and we are placing it in the Library of the House. Any compensation payments will be dealt with in the normal way.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why is it that there are computers that are run by Government—when the Tories were in and now under the present Government at the Passport Agency—that seemingly do not work, yet, throughout the ages, there has always been one computer that works immaculately. We should use it every time for these purposes: the one that is used by Inland Revenue. When money is drawn in, the computer works. When money is paid out, for example, by the Benefits Agency and Passport Agency, it does not work. Why does my hon. Friend not take my advice and say stuff it to Siemens?

Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we are having frank and full discussions with Siemens.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: What are the current turnaround times for passports and when will the backlog be cleared?

Mr. O'Brien: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make a statement on that point in answer to


Question 6 from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), but may I reassure the right hon. Lady? The way in which the computer system and staff are now operating continues to ensure that 99.99 per cent. of holiday dates are met. As for those people who have applied for passports but have not received them yet, we are attempting to do all that we can to ensure that they do receive them, and to meet all the requirements that people are putting on the Passport Agency. May I join her in paying tribute—as she did in last week's debate—to the hard work of the ordinary members of staff at the Passport Agency, who, in difficult circumstances, have done the best that they could?

AIDS

Dr. Ian Gibson: If he will make a statement on the prevalence of AIDS among prisoners. [89212]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): In 1997–98, a voluntary, anonymous survey of HIV, hepatitis and risk behaviour was conducted by the Public Health Laboratory Service Board at eight prisons. The survey found the prevalence of HIV to be 0.34 per cent. of the prison population overall.

Dr. Gibson: My hon. Friend will be aware that it is estimated that 7 per cent. of prisoners inject drugs and that 4 per cent. Have anal sex. Does that not necessitate some robust scientific study to get the true prevalence of HIV in prisons? Furthermore, given last week's High Court ruling, which confirmed the right of homosexuals to have condoms, should he not review that procedure and ensure that it does not necessitate a prisoner saying that he or she is a confirmed homosexual?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend should be aware that the High Court found, not as he described, but in favour of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Prison doctors already have authority to prescribe condoms to prisoners if, in their clinical judgment, there is a known risk of HIV infection. Doctors view the issuing of condoms in prison from the perspective of protecting public health by preventing the spread of HIV and other infections among prisoners—to whom the Prison Service, of course, has a legal duty of care—and to the wider community when prisoners are released.

Voting

Mr. James Plaskitt: If he will undertake a review of the possible use of weekend voting for elections. [89213]

Mr. Andy King: If he will put forward proposals for voting at weekends at future elections. [89216]

Mr. David Crausby: If he will bring forward proposals for a substantial extension of postal voting for future elections. [89228]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The working party on electoral procedures, chaired by the Under-Secretary of State for

the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), has been carefully considering all those matters. I shall be publishing the working party's final recommendations on modernisation of electoral procedures after its meeting tomorrow. Copies will be available in the Libraries of both Houses.
The Government are committed to improving our electoral procedures, as I am sure will be welcomed by all parties in the House. The working party will, among other things, be making recommendations for piloting new arrangements for voting, including changes in polling hours and polling days—to allow, for example, voting over more than one day, including over a weekend—all-postal ballots for certain elections, and electronic voting.

Mr. Plaskitt: I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend's answer, as that part of our political process is desperately in need of modernisation. Voting needs to be made more accessible, especially for families—many of whom, currently, are inconvenienced by Thursday voting because of school closures. Is my right hon. Friend considering committing himself to holding the next European Parliament elections on a weekend, as other member states do?

Mr. Straw: We shall certainly consult the other political parties on moving the polling date for the next European parliamentary elections, which will be held in 2004. There is also a case, which we shall consider very carefully, for ensuring that those elections coincide with local elections.
I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says about the way in which current voting arrangements might inconvenience families. There is nothing magical about using Thursdays as a polling day—until 1974, Saturdays were used in certain urban districts. I should also say—as it has been a problem in some polling areas of the west midlands—that I believe that there is no excuse for returning officers seeking to prevent parents from entering polling stations with young children, which would mean leaving those young children outside polling stations.

Mr. King: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt). I am also sure that the whole House appreciates the very good work that is being done to reform a clearly antiquated system.

Mr. Eric Forth: No.

Mr. King: Certain dinosaurs might not want anything to be changed. In the European elections, there was an access problem in the west midlands, with mothers with young children in prams—who could not be left outside—being turned away from polling stations. Ed Doolan highlighted that serious problem on Birmingham radio. We must ensure that polling stations are open to all, and I ask my right hon. Friend to commission a study into how we can ensure that returning officers and polling station staff are fully briefed on their responsibilities.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The issue was raised with the Under-Secretary by my hon. Friend


the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). He has examined the matter, and will tell Birmingham returning officers that there is no justification whatever for asking parents to leave their younger children outside a polling station. There is no rule whatever to say that younger children cannot be taken into a polling station. Against a background of falling turnouts, we must do everything that we can to encourage people to vote, and to make it easier—not harder—for them to do so.

Mr. Crausby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hardly any doctors ever refuse an application by a pensioner for a postal vote? Should we not now save NHS time by allowing all pensioners the right to request a postal vote—perhaps with an application form in the pension allowance book?

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We need to do everything that we can to encourage people to participate. The simple fact is that the transaction involved in voting—a pencil cross on a piece of paper—now appears to many to be old-fashioned and inconvenient, and polling stations are not necessarily sited in convenient places. I am keen to see an extension of postal voting to almost anyone who wishes it.

Mr. David Trimble: In any changes that are made, will the Home Secretary ensure that effective steps are taken to combat electoral fraud and vote stealing—a serious problem, not just in Northern Ireland, but in other parts of the United Kingdom? The Home Secretary must know that some of the measures that he has mentioned are the very means by which such electoral fraud is committed.

Mr. Straw: I accept entirely what the right hon. Gentleman says: these problems are not confined—as the myth has it—to Northern Ireland. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has a question on the Order Paper about problems in respect of the high numbers registered for proxy votes. The overriding and guiding principle for the working party on electoral procedures—chaired by the Under-Secretary-has been to ensure the integrity of the process. However, provided we get the procedures correct, there is no reason why, for example, there cannot be an extension of postal voting—a separate issue, and a system that is more secure than proxy voting—without undermining the integrity of the electoral process.

Mr. Forth: Surely the Home Secretary would not want to play any part in trivialising the voting process. Does he accept that it is not unreasonable to ask someone, in casting his vote, to take the trouble to go to a polling station between the very early hours of the morning and the late hours of the evening? Why should that be seen as so difficult? Why cannot a modern, mature electorate cope with that? Why should we have to spoon-feed people in the important matter of voting?

Mr. Straw: I see that the Conservative party is still intent on no compromise with the electorate. Such in-your-face hostility is unlikely to attract the right hon.

Gentleman many more voters than he managed on the previous occasion. His approach should not recommend itself to his Front-Bench colleagues.

Mr. Forth: Answer the question.

Mr. Straw: I shall answer the question. Our voting arrangements were last changed to any degree in 1883, and life has moved on since then. [Interruption.] Evidently it has not moved on for the unreconstructed right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). In a modern democracy, we ought to ensure that, consistent with the proper integrity of the process, the system is made as easy and attractive for people to vote as possible. Surely we all have an interest in maximising turnouts at elections.

Miss Anne McIntosh: In reaching a compromise with the electorate, will the Home Secretary go back to one, single, easy to understand and to administer system for all elections? Is it fair to introduce five different election systems in the space of two months for the same electorate within the UK? Rather than considering weekend voting, could we return to the first-past-the-post system? Or is the Home Secretary running scared, as such a system would have returned 65 Conservatives and probably a single-figure total of Labour Members to the European Parliament after the recent elections?

Mr. Straw: Running scared is not one of my habits. There is much to be said on all sides about different voting methods. I recommend to the hon. Lady the speech that I made on the first Second Reading of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, in which I talked about horses for courses. Whatever the arguments in favour of different voting systems, no one can argue that the electorate did not understand the system. That is a condescension. There is overwhelming evidence from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the United Kingdom that the voters understand the system; whether they agree with it is a different question.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: However, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not discount the views of those who find voting on Sunday offensive. I have sent him representations from my constituency, which is strongly Methodist. I know that many of my constituents are over 60, and can therefore of course be discounted, but there are still many people who regard this as a Christian country and find it offensive to be asked to vote on Sunday.

Mr. Straw: People who are over 60 are the least to be discounted, especially by this Government. I fully accept that there are those who would not want to vote on a Sunday, for religious reasons; there are also people, including members of the Orthodox Jewish faith, who for religious reasons would find it difficult if not impossible to vote on a Saturday. That argues for extending voting over the weekend on both Saturday and Sunday.

Mr. John Greenway: We are grateful for the consultation with the Under-Secretary, and we believe that the proposals are sufficiently radical to warrant a public consultation. What has happened to the legislative


prospects of the Neill committee report? The Home Secretary talks about no compromise. That ought to be the slogan for recommendations 83 to 88, on the conduct of referendums. Why do Ministers seem willing to rush headlong into legislating on the recommendations of the working party, when the Neill report was specifically commissioned by the Prime Minister and ought to be the priority?

Mr. Straw: In this Government, we can have more than one priority. I promised that there would be a draft Bill in response to the Neill recommendations by the summer recess and I fully intend to keep that promise. The Bill will deal with, among many other things, the recommendations on the conduct of referendums. There is no reason at all why we should not proceed as quickly as possible to put in place the other changes that were not dealt with directly by Neill in respect of electoral procedures. I am very grateful for the contributions of Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and others on the working party. It is in the interests of everybody who believes in democracy to ensure that our voting procedures are brought up to date.

Non-Home Office Police Forces

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What plans he has to review the control, role, responsibility and powers of non-Home Office police forces. [89214]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): None. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not persuaded that a need for such a review has been demonstrated, but he is ready to consider, with colleagues, as appropriate, any particular areas of concern.

Mr. Mackinlay: I appreciate the fact that I was sent, unsolicited, the brief that my hon. Friend has used to reply to me this afternoon. I am grateful, because I have had time to appreciate how inadequate that brief is. Will he confirm that it does not tell us that, when we were in opposition, Labour Members supported an amendment that I tabled to the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill to give powers, in extremis, to British Transport, Ministry of Defence and Royal Parks constabulary police officers, when action is needed just outside their jurisdiction and no Metropolitan police officer is available, or when such an officer needs support? Will he further confirm that the brief does not tell us that the senior police officers of those forces and their representative organisations think that there should be a change?
My hon. Friend's predecessor, now Secretary of State for Wales, was clued up to the issue. Will my hon. Friend tell his officials that it needs to be reconsidered, because within a stone's throw of here there are officers who have no more powers of arrest than you or I, Madam Speaker, and that situation puts them in jeopardy? Will he return the brief and give those officials two out of 10?

Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend makes his point with characteristic force. He brings an unprecedented historical knowledge to the role of the non-Home Office forces and I shall certainly take into account what he says. If he has any particular points that he would like to bring home to me in the privacy of my office, he is more than welcome to attend there.

Passports

Mr. David Heath: How many applications for passports are currently awaiting processing. [89215]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): As of yesterday, the number of passport applications waiting to be processed was just under 500,000, a reduction of 6 per cent. on the previous week's figure. That is equivalent to just under four weeks' output. Passport offices in Belfast, Peterborough and Newport have cleared virtually all declared July travel dates. Liverpool passport office has cleared virtually all travel dates up to 19 July and expects to clear the remainder this week. Glasgow has cleared all travel dates up to 22 July.
Last week, the Passport Agency issued 166,000 passports, the highest weekly total on record. In addition, the Post Office estimates that between Wednesday and Saturday last week it extended 105,000 passports.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that information, but I have difficulty reconciling it with the admirably clear information that is provided by the Passport Agency on its website. It appears to indicate that four out of the six passport offices had an increased processing time two weeks ago and that Glasgow and Liverpool now have a 42-day turnaround for an average passport application, which would mean that an application made today would be processed by the end of September—long after the holiday period. Can the Home Secretary confirm whether those figures are correct? Can he reconcile them with the figures that he has given and explain when things will get better?

Mr. Straw: I confess to the House that I have not consulted any part of the internet this morning: I prefer the accuracy of paper and ink—

Mr. David Davis: So much for electronic voting.

Mr. Straw: I did not say that I would vote electronically, although I did in the Labour party's national executive committee elections and I enjoyed the experience. I shall write to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), but I do not think that there is any contradiction between the figures that I have given and those that he has cited. His figures represent the total delay in respect of each of the passport offices, but they are all processing first and foremost those applications with July travel dates. That, for the time being, necessarily means that those with later travel dates will be dealt with at a later time than otherwise would be the case.
I am clear, however, that—although the Passport Agency is not yet out of the woods—the changes that I put in place two weeks ago are making a difference. Output is now at record levels, and the changes in respect of the Post Office have considerably relieved the pressure of immediate applications. That is coinciding with what we expect to be the beginning of a seasonal downturn in the total number of applications.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Can my right hon. Friend confirm to the House that we do not


expect to see this problem arise again? Can he also confirm to the hard-pressed staff in the offices in my constituency that they will no longer be faced with up to 30 callers a day trying to sort out their problems?

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is quite right to complain about what has happened in the Passport Agency. I made the position clear to the House when I spoke about it two weeks ago and I apologised to those many people—not only the 132 who have been paid compensation, but the many thousands of others—who have been inconvenienced by the changes. What has happened is unacceptable and we are working hard to make sure that it does not happen again.

Mr. John Bercow: Given that the right hon. Gentleman has already decreed that the 10 charge for a passport application in person should be waived in circumstances in which an individual is obliged through no fault of his own to make that application, will he now go one stage further, do the decent thing and agree that any such individual—obliged, often at short notice, to make a visit to a passport office—will be reimbursed, in full, his travel costs?

Mr. Straw: We could not conceivably agree with that proposition, and I doubt very much whether Conservative Members, if they were in government, could either. Indeed, I am sure that they did not agree with that proposition when problems were encountered—they were not on the present scale but they existed—at the roll-out of the previous computer system in 1989.
The London office is a caller office, as some people require passports at very short notice. I have said previously that the £10 caller fee should be waived for people who apply for passports but who do not receive one in the 10-day target period and must then go to one of the caller offices around the country. I think that that is fair.

Electoral Procedures

Mr. Peter L. Pike: When he expects the working party on electoral procedures to report; and what changes he proposes to make in the proxy voting system. [89217]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I am aware that the police are investigating a number of allegations of proxy voting abuse and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any of them specifically.
The final report of the working party on electoral procedures, which I chair, is likely to include a number of recommendations on absent voting. However, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear in an earlier answer, we have to be convinced that any changes that are made will not undermine the integrity of the ballot.

Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and I know that he and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary are aware that, in May, about 28 per cent. of the electorate in Burnley's Daneshouse ward claimed proxy votes. The working party report will soon be

available, and it is important to do everything possible to ensure that people are able to cast a vote, whether it be by post or by proxy. Is not the integrity of the vote the overriding factor, and should not the aim be to ensure that a person's vote is cast as that person wishes?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right. This country has a long and proud tradition of free and fair elections without any form of corruption. Any changes that we make must uphold both the spirit and the letter of that tradition.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Although changes such as increased proxy voting, voting at the weekend or electronic voting may be introduced, is it not most important that people are on electoral registers? If we can resolve the problem of the 3 million or 4 million people missing from electoral registers, we can move on to consider the other matters that have been raised. Does my hon. Friend agree that the question of electoral registers should be given priority consideration?

Mr. Howarth: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has worked for a number of years to raise awareness of the problem of the number of people who do not appear on electoral registers. I assure him that we have studied the matter very carefully. An announcement will be made about it later this week.

Hunting With Dogs

Mr. David Watts: If he will bring forward proposals for legislation on hunting with dogs. [89218]

Dr. Howard Stoate: If he will bring forward legislation on hunting with dogs. [89220]

Dr. Brian Iddon: If he will bring forward legislation on hunting with dogs. [89224]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, we are actively considering how to take this issue forward.
The House voted overwhelmingly in favour of a ban on hunting in a free vote in 1997. Since then, we have been discussing ways of bringing this issue to a conclusion. We hope to make an announcement of our specific proposals soon.

Mr. Watts: I thank my hon. Friend for that response, which will be warmly welcomed by the vast majority of the public. However, does he agree that any legislation must ban hunting with dogs totally, and that no opt-out should be introduced under any further legislation?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend will be aware of the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week. Obviously, we will bring forward our proposals in due course, and I am sure that my hon. Friend and many others will welcome them very warmly when they appear.

Dr. Stoate: On behalf of my constituents in Dartford, who are overwhelmingly in favour of a ban, I thank my


hon. Friend for his reply. Is my hon. Friend aware of the latest MORI opinion poll, which puts 72 per cent. of people against hunting with dogs? Is he further aware that the survey shows that Conservative supporters are three to one against hunting, dwellers in rural communities are four to one in favour of a ban and readers of The Daily Telegraph are two to one in favour? In view of that, will he be able to produce legislation at the earliest possible opportunity—hopefully, before the end of this Parliament?

Mr. Howarth: If the opportunity permits, that is exactly what we hope to achieve. Of course, my hon. Friend is right. A large proportion of the public have repeatedly shown in polls that they favour legislation of that sort. Indeed, a majority of hon. Members have shown that they favour such legislation. For Labour Members, there will be a free vote and I hope that all the other parties will take a similar position.

Dr. Iddon: My hon. Friend knows that strong feelings run in all quarters of the House on this issue. I hear what he says about a free vote. Has he or have the Government had discussions with Opposition Members to ensure that there will be a free vote across the House, especially bearing in mind some of the press reports today? Furthermore, will he agree that all hon. Members ought to be welcome to express their opinions freely without being gagged?

Mr. Howarth: I can speak only for the Government when I say that the intention is that we will have a free vote. There are certainly compelling reasons why the Opposition may be persuaded that a free vote would be appropriate.

Mr. A. J. Beith: So that hon. Members on both sides of the House and on both sides of this free vote issue will know how things stand, can we be clear whether this will be a Home Office Bill in Government time, introduced by Home Office Ministers? Will the Minister be publishing—at the time that the Bill is published, or before—the work done by the Home Office on the policing of a hunt ban and the memorandum in which he appeared to say that the International Fund for Animal Welfare would switch its attention from the issue to the Government if it were not resolved quickly?

Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I will not comment on leaked documents—

Mr. James Gray: What about the money?

Madam Speaker: Order. Questions must not be asked from a sedentary position. I reprimand the hon. Gentleman. He must ask questions only when I call him.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Speaker.
To answer the question asked by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), there are three options, all of which are under consideration. The first is a Government Bill, the second the possibility of a private Member's Bill and the third the possibility of an

amendment to a Government Bill. At this stage, we have not adopted a particular position, but we shall in due course make our position clear.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Has the hon. Gentleman ever been to the Lincolnshire agricultural show? Is he aware that, at last month's show, there was a display of the five local hunts, which was by far the most popular display at the show? Does he understand the dismay, bewilderment and extreme anger that would be felt by those who were at that show at the suggestion that the pastime that they so vigorously support should be made criminal? Does he not realise that would be an outrageous infringement of civil rights? Will he understand that this Government will long be remembered as the Government who released killers, but threatened with imprisonment those who have long supported the traditional country sports?

Mr. Howarth: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will probably not be surprised to learn that I did not attend that particular agricultural affair, but I acknowledge that there are strong feelings on both sides of the argument. Indeed, there are strong feelings on both sides of the House and they are not universally shared by members of particular parties. The truth of the matter is that the House expressed its view on the issue in this Parliament and the public have expressed their view in many opinion polls. The balance of the argument must be to move the issue further forward. The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not help his cause by using arguments that simply do not stand up to close scrutiny.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Is the Minister aware that the country likes Government policy to be consistent, and that we like Ministers to be consistent too, even though they may occasionally be wrong? Is it consistent to change the law so as to put in prison people who hunt vermin with hounds and, at the same time, to release terrorists from prison?

Mr. Howarth: I have to point out that the Opposition supported the principles behind the Good Friday agreement, and it is, frankly, wrong for the hon. Gentleman to condense both that issue and hunting. I am sure that he, like the rest of us, wants to see peace in Northern Ireland, and I should not have expected the hon. Gentleman to raise this issue along with that of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Eddie O'Hara: When considering the issue, will my hon. Friend reflect, as I have, on the fact that those who demonstrate outside the House and on the Opposition Benches, saying, "Hands off our country sports," answer themselves out of their own mouths when they reveal that they make a sport out of pursuing, terrorising, torturing and killing high-order sentient creatures?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour makes his own point. I simply repeat what I said a few moments ago: there are strong feelings on both sides of the argument, but I hope that those who want to express strong views will do so in a non-violent and


civilised way. The House is eager to debate the issue and, if we do so on those terms, we will not exercise ourselves wrongly.

Mr. David Lidington: Given the honourable and long-held difference of opinion on this issue among hon. Members on the Government Benches as well as those on the Opposition Benches, will the Minister say whether the free vote among Labour Members will, as with Conservative Members, include members of the Front Bench and apply to all stages of any legislation?
Does the Minister accept that Home Office Ministers regarded such legislation as the very last thing that they wanted dumped on their desks at this time? They have been landed with it by the desperation of spin doctors at No. 10, who are in a panic about how to distract media attention away from the public slanging match between the Prime Minister and his deputy, and by their fears of a hostile advertising campaign operated by one of the Labour party's £1 million paymasters.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman raises the question of a sum of money that was paid to the Labour party before the previous general election. Perhaps he and his hon. Friends would like to explain why a large sum from the same organisation was paid to the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats.
In his remarks last week, the Prime Minister was reflecting the will of the House and the view of the people of this country. Perhaps it is about time that the hon. Gentleman and his party started to make similar reflections. They could not be more wrong about how we arrived at this position, and they could not be more wrong about who they think they will become popular with by taking the line that they have taken.

Anti-social Behaviour Orders

Mr. Vernon Coaker: What steps he is taking to ensure that the powers contained in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to tackle anti-social behaviour are used. [89219]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): It is for the courts to decide whether an anti-social behaviour order can be granted. I have, however, issued detailed guidance to make clear the kind of circumstances in which applications should be sought. The orders provide a valuable tool to help combat anti-social behaviour, and I encourage the relevant authorities in areas where such behaviour is a problem to consider their use.

Mr. Coaker: On tabling a parliamentary question some two or three weeks ago about the use of the orders, I was surprised to find that, since they had come into effect in April, only one had been issued. The Home Secretary will know that many of us suffer the blight of anti-social behaviour on our estates, and were looking forward to the Crime and Disorder Act as a way of combating such behaviour. Will he do all that he can to encourage police forces, such as Nottingham police, and local authorities, such as Gedling district council, to use the orders that he has given them to combat behaviour that is driving many of our citizens absolutely mad?

Mr. Straw: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that undertaking. There was huge support for the idea of the

orders—expressed nationally by the police and local authority associations, and to me personally by the police and local authorities when I visited his area of Nottinghamshire last year. Unfortunately, when new orders are introduced and this House and the other place create new offences, it often takes time for the authorities to make proper use of them. We are doing all that we can nationally to encourage the police and local authorities to make full use of the orders for which they asked. In turn, I ask every right hon. and hon. Member on both sides of the House to do everything possible to cajole and encourage their local police forces and authorities to make the fullest possible use of the orders.

Sir Robert Smith: Does the Home Secretary remember that, when the Crime and Disorder Bill was in Committee, Ministers gave assurances that the orders were a last resort and were not to be oversold? Is there not a danger in the question and the answer that he has given of sending out the wrong message, resulting in the orders being used as a blanket system of justice rather than a last resort?

Mr. Straw: We are not in any sense overselling the idea of the orders. They are indeed a last resort, although many people in many constituencies are at the end of their tether as their civil liberties—their fundamental freedom to enjoy life in peace without being harassed and intimidated by anti-social neighbours—are being withdrawn. That is why the orders are there. I think that they have already had some effect. The police tell me that the threat of them is already helping to ensure greater compliance in some neighbourhoods. So, the figures of the orders granted belie their effectiveness. They are a last resort, but they are there to be used, and used they should be.

Mr. Martin Linton: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that magistrates receive information on, and training in, the use of anti-social behaviour orders, and that they are made aware of the results of imposing such orders in a national demonstration project along the same lines as the community service demonstration projects?

Mr. Straw: The last point is an excellent idea, which I shall pursue. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it. There was considerable discussion with the Magistrates Association and the stipendiary magistrates, as well as with the Justices' Clerks Society, about the draft guidance. So, a great deal of work has already been done to draw to the attention of magistrates the detailed way in which the orders work and, indeed, the need for them.

Special Constabulary

Mr. Bob Russell: What measures are being taken to increase recruitment to the special constabulary. [89221]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): We have supported the police forces' recruitment campaigns by holding a "Specials' Week" during which I and a number of my ministerial colleagues attended events held by forces around the country to highlight and promote the service provided by special constables. To complement the


activities, which were held during January, some forces received local press and advertising funded by the Home Office at a cost of £500,000. In addition, the Home Office has produced a recruitment video, a series of posters, and a recruitment brochure for the forces.

Mr. Russell: Does the Minister accept that that support has not been very successful, bearing in mind that the number of specials has fallen by 3,250 since the Government came into office? If that haemorrhaging continues at the same rate, by the end of this Parliament, the reduction will be nearly 40 per cent. Is there a place for the special constabulary in the modern police force? If so, is it not time that the Government did something positive about that?

Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman is right in that the specials play a very important role in our police force. We have done as much as possible to ensure that the police are given help to recruit them. Although he is right to say that the number of specials has recently slightly decreased, I should point out that they are now trained to a sophisticated level and are used for a much wider variety of duties. Rather than just, as used to be perceived, helping out at fetes, and so on, they are now used in a variety of expertise policing. They bring their own skills to the job. They are very important indeed. We want people from all walks of life to join the specials, because they are a very good practical example of police and public working together.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman congratulates the chief constable in his area, because, in that area, the specials have continued to do extremely well and are recruiting with increasing success. I hope that he will send out a message to all his constituents, encouraging them to join the specials, because they can give a very good service to the public.

Mr. David Drew: I agree with what has been said about the excellent work of the specials and the depth of their interest and commitment. However, does my hon. Friend agree that the fundamental problem in becoming a special is the need to take time off work, and that there is a need to mount a proper campaign—perhaps alongside the Territorial Army and school governors—to persuade employers of the value of that activity? That would encourage people to put themselves forward for that interesting and rewarding activity.

Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend is right. We are considering all methods of bringing more people into the specials. We want to work with employers so that they give support by making available the time that is needed for training. We want there to be more specials. If hon. Members have any ideas that might be used to recruit specials, we shall be happy to work with them on those ideas. All of us together can increase not just the number of specials but the important role that they play in the police service.

Mr. Edward Gamier: Can the hon. Lady, for whom I have the highest regard, tell me how

many additional special constables will be needed to police hunt saboteurs now that the Prime Minister has made an announcement about the banning of hunting?

Kate Hoey: The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that such matters will be looked into when a Bill—of whatever sort, and whoever it is introduced by—is discussed by the House.

Detention Orders

Mr. Bill Rammell: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on detention orders relating to people with severe personality disorders. [89225]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): The statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the House on 15 February 1999, Official Report, columns 601–03, set out our proposals to introduce powers of indeterminate detention for dangerously severely personality disordered individuals. The development of this policy has required joint working at all levels between the Home Office and the Department of Health—including extensive discussions between Ministers from both Departments.
We shall publish the consultation paper on the management of such persons shortly.

Mr. Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree that it is illogical that doctors can detain people with treatable severe personality disorders while members of a much more dangerous group, those with untreatable severe personality disorders, cannot be detained in that way and must be released unsupervised into the community? Does that not underline the need for co-operation and action between the respective Departments? Can my hon. Friend assure me and the House that the discussion that is taking place will lead to greater security for children and families?

Mr. Boateng: I can give my hon. Friend that categoric assurance. It is vital that a multi-disciplinary approach is taken to that group of highly dangerous individuals. A determination to protect the public must be at the heart of all that we do.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: I welcome very much what the Minister has said and the discussions that are taking place but, as I understand it, legislation will be needed to require people with severe untreatable personality disorders to be detained. That is obviously a priority. When will legislation be brought before the House to make that a priority? It is what the public want—perhaps more than his hunting Bill.

Mr. Boateng: The hon. Lady will appreciate that it is not for me to anticipate the Queen's Speech, but she will also know that we are showing all expedition in relation to that group of dangerous individuals. She will know of the £700 million that we are already investing to improve services for the mentally ill, and of the extensive action that the Government have taken in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to put public protection at the heart of the


treatment of those who present a danger to the public. She can be sure, therefore, that we shall take this matter forward at an early date.

Ms Bridget Prentice: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that, when he is consulting the Department of Health on this issue, he might take a look at my ten-minute rule Bill, the Restraining and Protection Orders Bill, which covered people who have severe personality disorders? Will he look at that very carefully, because health authorities in particular may have a role to play in ensuring that people who have such severe personality disorders are taken to a place of safety—

especially if such people put themselves forward to the health authority because they know that they are at risk of being a danger to the rest of society?

Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on bringing this matter to the attention of the House. She will recognise, however, that one of the problems is that psychiatrists say that they can do nothing for those who come within this group under mental health legislation. Similarly, those in the group may not yet have committed a criminal offence, although they almost certainly will do so. Therefore, we have to find a third way to put the public's protection at the heart of the treatment of this group of individuals.

Madam Speaker's Statement

Madam Speaker: Following questions to the Secretary of State for Wales on 7 July, Members raised with me points of order relating to the matters on which the Secretary of State can be questioned following the transfer of powers on 1 July. This issue also applies to questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I should emphasise that I do not wish the rules relating to questions to become unduly restrictive; but a fundamental rule relating to questions is that they must relate to matters for which Ministers in this House are responsible.
I also note that the Procedure Committee, whose report on the procedural consequences of devolution has still to be debated, recently concluded that the rules for questions must recognise the fact of devolution and limit the range of permissible questions to Ministers at Westminster.
Where matters have been clearly devolved to the Scottish Parliament or to the Welsh Assembly, questions on the details of policy or expenditure would not be in order. Where Secretaries of State have a residual, limited or shared role, questions should relate to that role.
Examples of such limited areas of responsibility are: information that the United Kingdom Government are empowered to require of the devolved Executive; matters that are included in UK legislation relating to Scotland; all primary legislation relating to Wales; matters subject to substantive liaison arrangements between UK Government and the devolved Executives; operation of any remaining administrative powers.
In the case of reserved matters that are the responsibility of other Government Departments, questions should be tabled to the relevant Secretary of State. If questions are inappropriately directed to the Secretaries of State for Scotland or Wales, I would expect Ministers to transfer them to the responsible Department in the usual way.
These guidelines follow directly from the decisions of the House in enacting the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998, and will ensure that priority is given to questions on those matters for which Ministers here are responsible. The House will also be greatly helped if Ministers confine their answers to matters for which they have responsibility.
I have offered this guidance to the House to enable the Table Office better to advise all Members on orderly questions. Once the House has had a chance to debate the

fourth report of the Procedure Committee and the House has had some experience of the operation of the rules, I shall, of course, review the terms of my ruling.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask whether Lord Steel of Aikwood, as the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, will also put before Holyrood the same stringent guidelines—the mirror image reversed—so that if we obey the rules that you have, understandably, set out, Madam Speaker, the same rules will be obeyed by the Holyrood Parliament? Have there been discussions along those lines?

Madam Speaker: I always inform the House first, and I have just done so. The guidance will be sent to Holyrood now that I have made my statement. These are not stringent rules. I have tried to be helpful to the House and to Ministers. These are simply guidelines until we have the fourth report from the Procedure Committee debated and until we see how things work. Perhaps we can then look at matters afresh. As I have said, I shall review these guidelines.

Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is there any mechanism whereby you can ensure and guarantee to the House that any legislation brought before the House by a private Member or by the Government is in no way unduly influenced by money changing hands, or by threats of money changing hands in one way or another? Is there a mechanism whereby we can ensure that, so that the legislative mechanism is seen not to be unduly influenced by wealthy people making threats, even to the Government of the day?

Madam Speaker: I have considerable responsibilities, but I fear that they do not go that far. Of course, we have the Neill committee on which we rely a great deal. Perhaps that is a matter that the Neill committee may consider in the coming months.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I am sorry, Mr. Kaufman. I have dealt with the point of order. There can be no further point of order.

Personal Statement (Mr. Ernie Ross)

Mr. Ernie Ross: With your permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a personal statement.
The Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, in its eighth report published on 29 June 1999, considered the first special report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on a premature disclosure of reports on Sierra Leone. The Standards and Privileges Committee concluded that my action as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee in making available to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office a draft of the Committee report was
a serious interference with the select committee system",
and that my conduct fell below the standards that the House was entitled to expect from its Members.
I believe that all hon. Members should accept reports of the House that are critical of them, and of course I do so. I therefore apologise to the House for my actions in this matter. With your permission, Madam Speaker, I shall now withdraw from the House.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Ross.

BILL PRESENTED

NORTHERN IRELAND

Secretary Marjorie Mowlam, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Cook, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Robertson, Mr. Secretary Michael, Mr. Secretary Reid and Mr. Paul Murphy, presented a Bill to make provision for the suspension in certain circumstances of devolved government in Northern Ireland and the exercise of certain functions conferred by or under Part V of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 136].

Sir Brian Mawhinney: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have just been to the Vote Office, and the Northern Ireland Bill that has just been presented is not available to right hon. and hon. Members. The Vote Office tells me that it has been told that the Bill may be available by 9 pm this evening, but that there is no guarantee of that.
I understand that the content of Bills and when they are debated in the House is a matter for the Government and not for you, Madam Speaker, but I wonder whether you have some power to help Back Benchers. The Bill may literally affect the peace of the realm. We are told that the Government expect it to go through all of its stages tomorrow. Have you the power to specify a time beyond which it would not be acceptable for the Bill to be made available to Back Benchers, if indeed it is to be considered tomorrow?

Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you also advise the House how you envisage that it will be possible for hon. Members properly to consider such a Bill, properly

to consult those who may legitimately be interested in it, and more crucially, properly to table amendments? how can the House have time to consider the original text of the Bill and the text of any amendments that may be tabled? Your advice is essential in this case, because there seems to be a great danger that the House will get itself into extreme difficulty in legislating properly, with such absurd time constraints placed on it.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): rose—

Mr. Gerald howarth: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House and I are quite capable of dealing with the matter so far.

Mrs. Beckett: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Of course I understand the anxieties expressed by right hon. and hon. Members, and I respect in particular the concerns of Back-Bench Members who have not been involved in the detailed discussions.
It may be helpful to the House to know that discussions are proceeding to try to get the Bill as strong and as robust as we can, so that there will broad agreement. The Leader of the Opposition and other relevant, closely involved parties are being kept informed and involved in those discussions. We hope that the Bill will be available in time for amendments to be tabled before Second Reading. That can be facilitated if the House agrees a motion that the Government have already tabled for decision later today.

Mr. Gerald howarth: rose—

Mr. Forth: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. May I just reply to those points of order. I am not in a position to delay tomorrow's legislation in any way. I am aware that Bill is not available—I made inquiries myself—but that is not unusual, as hon. Members of long standing will be aware. It is not disorderly, and it is no discourtesy to the house, not to have a Bill ready at this stage. That has happened on a number of occasions and we have heard what the Leader of the House said.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand—and, indeed, I know from my own experience—that sometimes Government Bills are produced to the House when they are not in their final form. I cannot immediately think, however, of any example of that being the case when a Bill was to be put through all its stages the following day. I have to say through you that, as a Back Bencher, I want the protection of the Chair against those arrangements, which the Leader of the House tells us are being made in corners and behind Benches, even if they are being made with the most distinguished Members of the house. Your protection is for the vast majority of Members—the Back Benchers, who have as much right, duty and responsibility as the Front Benchers to consider the legislation.

Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman might put those points about his dissatisfaction with matters in the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order arises from your


statement, which will be very much welcomed in Wales, and I hope that we can avoid the confusion of last Wednesday. It has been suggested that Members representing constituencies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should no longer vote on matters affecting England only and that the House would act as an English Parliament on certain occasions. You will recall that we were all elected as representatives of the United Kingdom. Could you give some guidance, now or possibly in the future, on what the conduct of Members of Parliament should be when matters affecting England only come before the house?

Madam Speaker: I expect all Members who have been elected to the House to participate in all the procedures of the house. Whether that means going into the Lobby or not is up to them. It is not for me to determine whether Members should vote, but as far as I am concerned, they certainly have the right, the privilege and the responsibility so to do.

Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to return to this matter for a moment, but it is of considerable importance. The Northern Ireland Bill has been presented, but its Second Reading is not until tomorrow, when all stages will be taken. May we have the assurance that you, or whoever is in the Chair, will ensure that manuscript amendments will be accepted by the Clerks at the Table? That is imperative. Members may wish to amend the Bill, even if there has been agreement on it between those on the two Front Benches.

Madam Speaker: I am very tolerant of such things, but that is a matter for the Chair. When the amendments come in, I shall certainly look at them and be as helpful as I can.

Mr. Gerald howarth: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Whatever the precedent may have been, is it not unsatisfactory in terms of the proceedings of this House—quite apart from the time scale involved—for the Government to have presented a Bill that is not yet in its final form? Surely the time has come for Bills to be presented to the House in a form that the House can debate.

Madam Speaker: I have already indicated to the House that that is not a disorderly practice. Other Governments have presented Bills in a similar way. If there is a strong feeling among Members about Bills being ready when they are presented for First Reading, that is a matter for the Procedure Committee.

Standards and Privileges

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this house—
(i) approves the Eighth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 607); and
(ii) accordingly suspends Mr. Ernie Ross, Member for Dundee West, from the service of the House for ten sitting days.—[Mrs. Beckett.]

Sir George Young: The House is grateful to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and his Committee for the report and for the work that went into it. Its conclusions, which we are invited to approve, are divided into two: those that relate to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), and those that relate to the Foreign Secretary and his Department. I do not propose to dwell on the former; the hon. Gentleman has recognised the offence and has apologised. If the House approves the motion, which I support, he will be punished by suspension and the incident will inevitably cast a small shadow over his future career, but the House is, by tradition, forgiving, generous and non-vindictive in such circumstances. I propose to respect that tradition and to say no more about him.
The bulk of the conclusions, however, are not about the hon. Member for Dundee, West; they are about the Government. With respect to the Leader of the house, the Select Committee and the Houseare entitled to a fuller explanation of what is said about them than the formal moving of a motion.
The second part of the report is symptomatic of how the Government have treated the House of Commons and its institutions. The hon. Member for Dundee, West has at least apologised for what he did to the Select Committee; the Government have not, despite having been asked to do so on several occasions—and they should. They used information, to which they knew they were not entitled, to denigrate a Select Committee report before it was published. As Andrew Parker wrote in the Financial Times on 24 February,
Tony Blair, Prime Minister, and Mr. Cook went on the offensive to rubbish the report on the morning of publication, describing its criticisms as disproportionate and unfair".
As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) pointed out at the time, that was before the report was published.
The Foreign Secretary, when invited to apologise on 24 February, refused to do so; nor has he done so in his correspondence with the Select Committee, published in the report. It is typical of his high-handed approach, as is his refusal to attend this debate. He should have apologised, not least in view of the history of problems between him and the Select Committee, which goes back a year to his refusal to respond to its requests for information, and his assertion that the Select Committee had not unearthed a single piece of information not already highlighted in the Foreign Office's own inquiry. If the Foreign Secretary cannot express regret about how the Committee was treated, the Leader of the house, who has a broader responsibility, which I believe she takes seriously, should do so on the Government's behalf.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Before the right hon. Gentleman gets too carried away, I remind him that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave unprecedented access to Foreign Office papers and telegrams, which no Minister in the previous Government ever gave or would have dreamed of giving.

Sir George Young: The Foreign Secretary should apologise to the Select Committee and to the Housefor how he treated one of its institutions, and I regret that he has not done so.
May I deal briefly with page xv of the report and the role of the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee? he is not criticised in the report and I do not criticise him myself. He was good enough to ring me this morning and to explain the background to the final paragraph on that page, which is an extract from a letter from the Foreign Secretary dated 17 March. It says:
On the day before publication the Chair of the FAC gave a full briefing to Andy Henderson, the head of the FCO Parliamentary Relations Department, making clear that the bulk of the Report's criticism would be27/6/2549 aimed at senior officials. Mr. Henderson minuted that exchange to officials within the FCO.
The questions that arise from that are: first, whether the briefing did take place and, if so, whether it was done with the knowledge and authority of other members of the Select Committee; and, secondly, whether it is common practice for Chairmen of Select Committees to do that in advance of publication. I also pose the question whether the hon. Member for Dundee, West might have referred to the briefing when he spoke after the Foreign Secretary's statement about the leak on 25 February.
The motion says nothing about paragraph 27, which refers to changes in the ministerial code. The Committee asks the Prime Minister to amend the code, and to notify the Committee and the house. Today's debate would have been the right time and place for the Leader of the Houseto respond to that recommendation, instead of moving the motion formally and saying nothing. Has the code been modified and, if so, how? What has happened to the recommendation in paragraph 29, where an undertaking was given on what would happen once the Committee had reported? have those instructions been issued?
Can we now assume that the Foreign Secretary has abandoned the argument that he put in his letter dated 17 March, which was dismissed so conclusively and unanimously by the Committee? I was surprised, as I expect other hon. Members were, to hear the Foreign Secretary assert on the "Today" programme that any Member could sit in on any Select Committee hearing, even when it was deliberating on its report. I trust that we shall hear no more of the spurious defence that the hon. Member for Dundee, West could have gained advance knowledge of the report in that way.

Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but a moment ago he asked about the ministerial code. As the wording of the motion makes plain, the Government accept the report and have accepted the recommendations about the code, and the Prime Minister will review the code in that light. As the motion says that we accept the report, it did not seem necessary to take the time of the Housefurther to elaborate on that.

Sir George Young: That is not acceptable. The ministerial code is an important document. It has been

changed, but we have not been told how or when it was changed. The right hon. Lady should have told the House at the beginning exactly what action the Government were taking in response to the Select Committee's recommendation.
This whole sorry episode is symptomatic of the way in which the Government and some of their supporters treat Parliament. They seek to bypass, marginalise and undermine it. The leaking of a Select Committee report and its use by Ministers is a short circuit of the system, and it renders less effective one of the instruments of the House that holds the Executive to account. Given the Government's majority, it is even more important that the constitutional checks are not overridden.
Today's debate is about one of the most blatant breaches of one of the conventions of the house. There have been other developments, such as the making of announcements outside the house, the dramatic increase in the number of special advisers, and the use of the Government information service for political ends, which was the subject of a recent debate in the house. Those are signs of an arrogant Government who believe that they no longer have to account for themselves in the Chamber. I had hoped that the Government might have learned some lessons from this sorry episode, but their response so far leads me to doubt that.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is not criticised in the report. He was under the impression that any Member of Parliament could go to a Select Committee, and that used to be the position. I frequently had to consider what would happen if somebody came into the Public Accounts Committee and witnessed a deliberative meeting. I concluded that I would ask that Member of Parliament to leave, and that if the hon. Member did not leave, I would adjourn the meeting, being prepared to meet on a subsequent occasion.
Standing Orders were changed following the realisation that that was the situation. Not all of us know about these changes. It was some time before I realised that the Standing Order had been changed in that way. The Foreign Secretary was not criticised for that: we pointed out that he was under a misapprehension, and we dealt with it accordingly.
The House has heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), who made a clear and unreserved apology. We welcome that, and respect him for it. The eighth report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges follows two special reports from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which reported that my hon. Friend had admitted to sending a draft of our report on Sierra Leone to the Foreign Secretary in January, and to speaking to the Foreign Secretary's political adviser about the Committee's final conclusions. He had then resigned from the Committee, and we welcomed his acceptance of responsibility.
The Foreign Affairs Committee concluded that the matter was serious, and that such actions were likely to constitute a substantial interference with the Select Committee system. The Select Committee on Liaison, which I chair, took the same view. It subsequently came to light that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West had also sent to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office


the final version of the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on foreign policy and human rights. The Department had also received a draft of the Committee's report on European Union enlargement, although we did not know how it got it.
The Foreign Affairs Committee concluded that the possession by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of early versions of its first three reports of the present Session was likely to constitute substantial interference with the Select Committee system. Again, the Liaison Committee took the same view as the Foreign Affairs Committee, and we set out in our report the circumstances surrounding the leak of the Sierra Leone report. If I may, I shall summarise them for the benefit of the house.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West, who disagreed with the course of the Committee's inquiry, faxed a draft of the report to the Foreign Secretary's private office some time in the second week of January. At that time, the Committee was still informally considering successive drafts. My hon. Friend also sent a copy to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), who did not show it to or discuss it with anyone. The draft report was seen by the Foreign Secretary's political adviser and by a number of officials before it was brought to the attention of the Foreign Secretary and the permanent under-secretary on 1 February. Meanwhile, the Foreign Affairs Committee proceeded to finalise the report, and it was published on 9 February.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) raised the question of a possible leak with you, Madam Speaker, after Question Time that afternoon. You advised him to pursue the matter in the Committee, which he did. The Committee wrote to the Foreign Office, asking whether it had received a copy of the report before its publication.
At the beginning of the Committee's next meeting, on 23 February, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West admitted responsibility for the leak. The matter was then referred to the Standards and Privileges Committee. After we had begun our inquiry, we postponed consideration until the end of the Kosovo conflict, given the work load of the Foreign Office at the time. We received written evidence from my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Clerk of the house, and took oral evidence from certain Foreign Office officials who had seen the report, including the permanent under-secretary of state himself. We gave my hon. Friend the opportunity to appear before the Committee before we finalised our conclusions, but he indicated that he did not wish to do so.
I must emphasise that the Standards and Privileges Committee's conclusions were agreed to unanimously. That has been a characteristic of the Committee, as it was in the case of the more than 600 reports of the Public Accounts Committee, which it was my privilege to chair between 1983 and 1997. There are two main kinds of unanimity: that which results from acceptance of the facts disclosed, and that which relies on fudge to accommodate the various interests involved.
I have been irritated by comments that the Committee was dominated by Labour. In accordance with our rule, its composition reflects the composition of the house, which itself reflects the wishes of the electorate. The

Committee certainly does not operate on a party political basis. It contains Labour Members, Conservative Members, a Liberal Democrat and an independent, and all subscribed to the report. There is unanimity on all our reports—including, incidentally, the report on my right hon. Friend the Member for hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)—and that unanimity is genuine. Moreover, during the Committee's discussions, members sometimes criticise others who belong to the same party. We should nail the claim that the Committee is party political.
The most important aspect of the leak of a draft report to a Minister is the risk that the Department concerned might attempt to influence the considerations of the Committee concerned. That would indeed strike at the heart of the examination of the Executive by a Select Committee: it would constitute a perversion of the system of inquiry. We are satisfied, however, that it did not happen in this instance.
In a letter to us, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West wrote:
it became blindingly obvious to me that my actions in sending a copy of the draft Report to my two colleagues had effectively ruled out any opportunity that I had had of submitting substantial or indeed any amendments to this Report".
That is, in fact, what happened.

Sir Peter Emery: I am aware of the depth in which the right hon. Gentleman looks into matters such as this. The Houseis grateful for the service that he gives the Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the briefing did not affect the Committee, but does not pre-knowledge of a report in a Department allow that Department to issue a presentation to the press and other media? In this instance, did not that presentation constitute a definite rubbishing of the report before it had even been published—or, at least, at the very moment of its publication? That cannot be to the advantage of those who have spent many months reading the report, and seeing what has been said. Is it not a weakness that we must overcome?

Mr. Sheldon: It is a weakness that has been around for a very long time. It should be remembered that the contents of final, confidential, revised documents are frequently relayed 48 hours before publication. Those involved have an opportunity to present their case. In any event, the very fact of an investigation alerts people who are being condemned, or traduced, or being dealt with in some other way, and gives them an opportunity to present their case—and they have a pretty good idea of what that case will be. I do not think that this is a particular problem, but as I have said, if it is, it has been a problem for a long time. Anyway, the Foreign Secretary confirmed that no one at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had any contact with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West between receipt of the draft and completion of the final report.
At this point, perhaps I should remind the House of the position of those who wish to attend a private meeting of a Select Committee. Until a few years ago, it was possible for any hon. Member to attend such a meeting, but Standing Order No. 126 now allows the Committee to prevent such an intrusion. Therefore, a Minister who is also a Member of the House is not now able either to


attend or to see the papers of a Select Committee that the Committee does not want him to see. That is the safeguard that we have now, which did not used to be present.
On 1 March, you, Madam Speaker, asked us to consider the general responsibilities of a Member who received a leaked draft report. We concluded:
The Committee … entirely shares your view that the fundamental responsibility of a Member who finds himself or herself in this position must be to act in a way which does not impede the committee in the discharge of its responsibilities to the house. In our judgment the Member ought to make no use of leaked committee papers and should return them without delay to the clerk of the committee.
We agreed that the Prime Minister should amend the ministerial code, to require Ministers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries to comply with that guidance. I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement that he will review the wording of the code in the light of the report.
I should like to make it clear that the report makes no personal criticism of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd). Clearly, it would have been preferable if they had sent the leaked drafts straight back to the Committee, but, at the time, they did not have the benefit of the advice that we have given the House on the subject. The draft report had been in the Foreign Office for several weeks before the Foreign Secretary was even told about it.
The Committee examined the responsibilities of officials who receive leaked Committee papers. The permanent under-secretary of state, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the head of the Department, explained to us that no guidance had been available before we made our ruling—it had been understood that it would have been wrong to make use of the papers, but not that they should be returned. We concluded:
The duty of any official who receives leaked committee papers is exactly the same as that of a Member, namely to make no use of them and to return them without delay to the committee clerk".
Sir John Kerr told us that the Foreign Office had accepted that the guidance issued to Members should also apply to officials, and that other Departments were following that lead. We welcome that very much.
We note that Sir John had proposed that the guidance would be that officials in receipt of a leaked draft should return it to the Clerk of the Committee via the Minister. The Committee disagrees with that. The Minister has no business to see a leaked document. We concluded that the correct course of action should be for the official to return the documents directly to the Clerk of the Committee and to notify the Minister that he or she has done so.
Our Committee will examine the details of that guidance when it is produced. We share Sir John's hope that implementation of those instructions throughout Whitehall will deter potential leakers. Our position is clear:
any unauthorised use of unpublished select committee documents received by a Department will in future be regarded by this Committee as a contempt.
I turn to the conduct of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West. It is the Committee's considered opinion that such leaks strike at the heart of the role of Select

Committees as independent and efficient scrutineers of the Executive in a number of ways. Those leaks undermine trust within a Committee. A report from an earlier Privileges Committee pointed to the
damage that leaks had created among Members on committees by undermining their mutual trust, one for another.
That is the basis of Select Committees. Members meet and it is only when they have trust for each that they are able to come to conclusions based on the facts. Over time, if a Select Committee is working well, that will become the basis of proper scrutiny by that Select Committee.
We went on to point out that Committees' morale could decline if some members showed scant respect for the rules of privilege or for the loyalty of colleagues who do not betray confidential matters. We agreed with our predecessor Committee about the destructive effects of leaks, and concluded that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West,
as a member of a select committee charged with scrutinising the actions of a Government Department, disclosed confidential committee papers to a Minister in that Department without the knowledge of the other members of the committee and without the committee's approval. This was a clear breach of faith with the other members of the Foreign Affairs Committee which, as he recognised, made his position untenable. Moreover, it tended to undermine the Committee's authority by calling into question its independence from Government influence.
The House should be in no doubt that leaks from Select Committees to the Government are a most serious interference with the Select Committee system. In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West, he did own up straight away and stood down from the Committee, so that no suspicion fell on any of his colleagues. We arrived at the conclusion that my hon. Friend
must have known at the time that what he did was wrong
For all the reasons that I have outlined, we unanimously agreed that he should apologise to the House by means of a personal statement—which he has done honourably—and that a suspension for 10 sitting days was appropriate.
It is a grave matter for the Committee to recommend that the House should impose a suspension on a colleague, and it is a conclusion that we reached after much deliberation. My hon. Friend has explained that he disclosed the draft report to the Foreign Office because he profoundly disagreed with what his colleagues on the Select Committee were doing, and that he wished to alert Ministers to the fact that their Department would be criticised. There is no excuse for those actions. It is our firm view that what he did fell below the standards that colleagues on the Select Committee—indeed, all hon. Members—have a right to expect.
I ask the House to uphold our conclusions, and to approve the Committee's eighth report.

Mr. Michael howard: I do not wish to make any comment on the conduct of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). He has accepted the Committee's judgment, and there is little more to be said about that.
My comments will be directed, in the context of the eighth report, to the conduct of the Foreign Secretary, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, of the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd),


and of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs—the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson).
So far as the Foreign Secretary is concerned, the Committee's report is, in fact, quite damning. It deals with him at paragraphs 24 to 27. At paragraph 26, the Committee considered in detail the defence that he advanced for his conduct, and the conduct of those for whom he is accountable, in receiving and retaining draft reports of the Select Committee. The Committee, without qualification, rejected that defence. It seems to me to follow absolutely and inevitably from the Committee's findings that the Foreign Secretary was guilty of contempt of the house.
I have of course listened carefully to what the Standards and Privileges Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), has said, but I find his explanation for the lack of a specific finding in relation to the Foreign Secretary very far from convincing. That explanation may well go to mitigation of the Foreign Secretary's conduct, but the defence that he offered was rejected without qualification. The Foreign Secretary should, therefore, at the very least, apologise to the House for his conduct. His failure to do so and his absence from this debate themselves reinforce and aggravate the contempt that he has shown the house, and illustrate most vividly the contempt that the Government as a whole display for the house.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Is there not a distinction between what the right hon. and learned Gentleman calls "holding the House in contempt" and being in contempt? he has accused the Foreign Secretary of being in contempt. Will he explain why—and under which rule?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to suggest that there is a distinction between the two kinds of contempt. However, I believe that the Foreign Secretary is guilty of both kinds. The reason—which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has asked me to specify—is simply this: in his evidence to the Standards and Privileges Committee, the Foreign Secretary advanced a defence as to why he should not be accused of having held the House in contempt. That defence was rejected out of hand by the Committee. The logic, therefore, is that the Foreign Secretary was indeed in contempt of this house, and the explanation given by the Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, while it may go to mitigation, does not affect that point.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has great experience, but he completely misunderstands the term "being in contempt". He is simply talking rubbish.

Mr. Howard: That is an assertion, rather than an argument. I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at paragraphs 24 to 27 of the report, where he will find ample justification for the points that I am making. Similar criticism applies also to the Minister of State.

Shona McIsaac: The right hon. and learned Gentleman points to paragraphs in the report which refer to the Foreign Secretary. Paragraph 26 states:
It is the case that there is no precedent for regarding the disclosure of a draft report to another Member as a contempt.
Will he take that on board and stop going down this alley?

Mr. Howard: The fact that there was no precedent for regarding particular conduct as a contempt does not begin to mean that the conduct on the occasion in question was not a contempt. That is the point.

Mr. Sheldon: I thought that what the Committee said was quite clear—that it was not a contempt, but a misunderstanding. The Foreign Secretary thought that he could go to a Committee, as indeed I thought for some time after the introduction of Standing Order No. 126. Many Members still assume that they can go into a Select Committee. That was the view that we rejected—it had nothing to do with contempt. The Foreign Secretary thought that he had that right, and we said that he did not.

Mr. Howard: Even if that rule had not been changed, that would have been a fanciful and far-fetched reason for receiving a leaked report from the Committee and retaining it for a period of time.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: he did not.

Mr. Howard: The Foreign Secretary did receive such a leaked report, and he did retain it. He saw the report, and he did not return it. Even if the rule allowing hon. Members to attend Select Committee meetings had not been changed, it would be fanciful to suggest that that would have been an adequate defence. However, the rule had been changed, and the Foreign Secretary was capable of discovering that. He has not come to the Committee or to the House to say, "I am very sorry. I now know that the rules have been changed. Had I known, I would not have retained the report. I therefore apologise for the fact that I behaved in that way, in ignorance of the fact that the rule had been changed." That might have been an acceptable response. However, we have had no response of that kind, no apology and no recognition that what the Foreign Secretary did was wrong.
That is not the only aspect of this affair that merits close scrutiny. The first report from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs referred to parliamentary questions relating to the time at which the Government might have had sight of the Committee's report on Sierra Leone. The report said:
Though the answers to these questions are germane to the leak from the Committee, we express no opinion on them since this is a matter which the Committee on Standards and Privileges may wish to consider.
The Committee went on to draw particular attention to the Foreign Secretary's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 23 February. To appreciate the full significance of that question, one needs to look at the Minister of State's answer of 16 February, which is reproduced at annexe D to the report. The Minister of State was asked when he first saw the Select Committee report. He said that the report was first drawn to the attention of the Foreign Office when the Clerk collected it from the Select Committee on the morning of publication.
On 23 February, the Foreign Secretary for the first time gave a full account, putting up his hands and coming clean about the extent of the leak and his knowledge that the report had been seen by officials and by the Minister of State. The Foreign Secretary has claimed that the answer given on 16 February was "accurate, factual and correct". I do not believe that any objective commentator could possibly support that claim. He implicitly conceded as much in his answer of 23 February.
The question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham was not about leaks or about when the Foreign Secretary received the report. It was about statements made by the Foreign Office to the media. If he regards it as a sufficient discharge of his duty to answer questions accurately, factually and correctly, as he suggests, there was no need for him to disclose information about the leaked report in answer to my hon. Friend's question. He did so only because he knew that the game was up, as on that very day the hon. Member for Dundee, West put up his hands and made his admission. On 16 February, Foreign Office Ministers thought that they could get away with it, so they gave an answer that was completely at variance with the facts as they knew them to be; but on the 23rd, when the game was up, they came clean.
The Government make much of openness. In his introduction to the ministerial code of conduct, the Prime Minister said:
In issuing this Code, I should like to reaffirm my strong personal commitment to restoring the bond of trust between the British people and their Government. We are all here to serve and we must all serve honestly and in the interests of those who gave us our positions of trust.
I will expect all Ministers to work within the letter and spirit of the Code.
We do not need to look far into the body of the code before reaching its guidance on ministerial answers to Parliament. Paragraph 1.iii of chapter 1 says:
It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister".
Of course, the exercise of that sanction is a matter for the Prime Minister. This episode provides an illuminating illustration of the yawning gulf between his words and his deeds. The Foreign Affairs Committee specifically drew those parliamentary answers to the attention of the Standards and Privileges Committee, and it is a mystery to me why it did not investigate the matter.
My final point relates to the conduct of the hon. Member for Swansea, East. If the report is to believed—or, to be more accurate, if the Foreign Secretary's letter to the Committee, contained in the report, is to be believed—the hon. Member for Swansea, East gave a detailed briefing to the head of the Foreign Office's parliamentary relations department. If that were true, it would constitute a serious breach of trust in relation to the Committee, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree. He told me this morning—and I imagine that he will repeat his account to the House if he catches your eye, Madam Speaker—that the Foreign Secretary's account is untrue.
I shall not embarrass the hon. Member for Swansea, East by calling him an old friend of mine, but I have known him for a long time. I would simply say that the account that he gave me this morning is far more likely to be in character for him than the account given in the letter from the Foreign Secretary. Again, I am surprised that the Standards and Privileges Committee did not investigate the matter. Had it done so it might have got to the truth and the hon. Gentleman would have been spared the embarrassment that he has suffered in the past few days.
The Select Committee system is an essential element in parliamentary scrutiny of Government. The events disclosed and considered in the report indicate a systematic attempt by the present Government to suborn that system. It is a story that gives the lie to the protestations of the Government about their conduct.
The Prime Minister has famously said:
You know me, I'm a pretty straight kind of guy.
Well, the report reveals that he does not run a straight kind of Government. The sooner the country wakes up to that fact, the better.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and hythe (Mr. Howard) has been extremely fair to me—an unusual case of Llanelli rallying to the defence of Swansea.
The Standards and Privileges Committee has again produced a powerful and thorough report, and its Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), is to be commended on it. So far as it refers to the conduct of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), I can say only that I much regret losing a diligent and valued colleague from the Committee and I regret also the circumstances of his leaving. He has given a full and honourable apology to the House this afternoon.
So far as the second issue is concerned—the appropriate conduct of Ministers and civil servants on receiving reports—it is clearly right that neither Ministers nor civil servants should make use of such reports and that they should return them immediately. I would have thought that that was common courtesy and should not necessarily be enshrined in a code. However, I welcome the fact that the Government have responded immediately and that the ministerial code is now to be revised.
The House will not be surprised if I concentrate on two parts of the eighth report that refer to me, the footnote on page ix and the last paragraph on page xv, which states:
On the day before publication the Chair of the FAC gave a full briefing to Andy Henderson, the head of the FCO Parliamentary Relations Department, making clear that the bulk of the Report's criticism would be aimed at senior officials.
Let me say from the start that I totally rebut the idea that I fully briefed that official or, indeed, any Minister or adviser, or that I divulged or intended to divulge details of the report.
The allegation of a full briefing is a serious one. It goes to the heart of the integrity of the Committee and to the authority of its Chairman. Over the two years I have been privileged to chair the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have done my utmost to be Parliament's man, independent of Government and seeking to keep the Executive


accountable for what they have done and what they have failed to do. The Committee has received many plaudits for that role.
What are the facts? I wear several hats in the house. Mr. Henderson, the head of the parliamentary relations department, had recently taken up his post. He asked my office to arrange an informal meeting to leave his card, as it were, and to seek my advice on how best to relate to the Foreign Affairs Committee. I also chair the house's Commonwealth Parliamentary Association branch and I lead our delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly. I recall, for example, that the CPA figured largely in our conversation, in which I gave Mr. Henderson names of colleagues whom it would be valuable for him to meet.
The Foreign Affairs Committee report had, by that day, already been presented to the house. It was to be published the following day, so no question of privilege arose, and it was raised in our conversation only in passing. I recall saying to Mr. Henderson that I hoped that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would not rush to rubbish the report, and that anyone who had followed our proceedings would certainly know that officials, and not Ministers, were mainly in the frame. As Mr. Henderson was the man whose duty it was to try to improve relations between the Foreign Office and the Foreign Affairs Committee, which had been impaired in the course of our inquiry, I advised him that the Committee would never accept that the Government could prevent it from embarking on an inquiry by setting up an official inquiry, such as the Legg inquiry.
At the end of the meeting, I felt that I had done my best to do a good turn by giving Mr. Henderson the names of key parliamentary colleagues for him to meet. I believe that I actually introduced him to one or two of them.
I saw the eighth report of the Standards and Privileges Committee on 29 June, the day it was published. I was astonished and puzzled by the allegation of "detailed briefing", and immediately telephoned Mr. Henderson. I cannot recall the exact details of our conversation, but I do remember that I felt fully vindicated as a result of what he said to me, which was that I had done nothing improper and had said nothing that was not already effectively in the public domain.
Not only did I not fully brief Mr. Henderson, I had also scrupulously avoided seeing my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, as a matter of principle. However, on the evening before publication, by chance I met my right hon. Friend briefly in the Division Lobby. I urged him not to rubbish our report, as he had criticised the Committee forcefully in December. I went no further: no more, and no less, was said.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is giving a most lucid explanation of the report's contents, in so far as they affect him. However, will he say why he apprehended that the Foreign Secretary might rubbish the report of the Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman is Chairman?

Mr. Anderson: The answer is simple. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would understand my reasons had he read what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the Committee when he appeared before it in December, in the course of our inquiry, or the various comments that my right hon. Friend made—or which were attributed to him—afterwards.
The report was thorough and, in my judgment, important. My hope was that it would be treated properly by the Department.

Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, my memory of the events is not as clear as his, but am I correct in recalling that, over the weekend preceding the report's publication, there were references in the press—which I am sure did not emanate from my hon. Friend—to the effect that the report would be extremely critical of Ministers? Was it not in that context that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made his remarks?

Mr. Anderson: I shall come to the leaks over that weekend in a moment. As I shall explain to the house, I have received a letter of explanation from the official concerned, in which he stated that I had also told him how angry I was that there had been leaks over that weekend.

Sir John Stanley: The hon. Gentleman has made a very serious statement. He has said that the Foreign Secretary's evidence to the Standards and Privileges Committee was materially incorrect. The Foreign Office minute, passed by Mr. Henderson to the Foreign Office officials concerned, of his discussion with the hon. Gentleman is available. It will clearly demonstrate either that a full briefing was given, as the Foreign Secretary suggested, or, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, that no such briefing was given. In light of that, may I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he request the Foreign Secretary today to place a copy of that minute in the Library of the house?

Mr. Anderson: I would not be unhappy with that, but I can probably go virtually as far, since I will shortly quote a letter from the official concerned which covers that same conversation.
After speaking to Mr. Henderson on 29 June on the telephone, I went immediately to the office of the Clerk of the Foreign Affairs Committee, referred to the report of the Standards and Privileges Committee, and told the Clerk that Mr. Henderson had confirmed my recollection. Since I considered that a Committee matter, I asked the Clerk to write formally to his opposite number, Mr. Henderson, on behalf of the Committee, to ask in effect for further and better particulars before placing the correspondence before the Committee.
I received Mr. Henderson's reply this morning. It is dated Friday 9 July. I shall quote it in full to avoid any misunderstanding and any suggestion that I might have quoted it selectively. After the standard first paragraph, thanking the Clerk for his letter, it continues:
To answer the points you raised:
'Who initiated the meeting on 8 February?'
The meeting took place at my initiative. It was an introductory courtesy call on the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and in my new role as head of Parliamentary Relations Department. The meeting had been arranged well before we knew that the Foreign Affairs Committee report into Sierra Leone would be released the following day;
'What were the circumstances in which the meeting took place?' The meeting took place over a cup of coffee in the cafeteria of 1 Parliament Street. It lasted a little less than one hour. We discussed a number of issues relating to the FCO's relationship with the Committee and more widely with Parliament in general;
'What did Mr. Anderson say to me about the Report?'


Mr. Anderson told me that the Report would primarily criticise officials rather than Ministers, focusing in particular on a perceived failure to respond to the seriousness of events. He also indicated that the Committee remained concerned about the FCO's reluctance to co-operate with the Committee until the Legg inquiry had completed its work and the decision to deny access to 'C'.
He regretted the press leaks of the report the previous weekend. He hoped that the FCO would react constructively to the serious points made in the Report and counselled against an aggressive or angry response.
'Whether what he said could be construed as a leak of the Sierra Leone Report?'
Mr. Anderson briefed me in general terms but did not go into detail on any of the Report's specific recommendations. It would have been odd if he hadn't mentioned it, given its release the following day.
The reply from Mr. Henderson goes a little further than I recall, but all the matters mentioned were fully in the public domain. There was certainly not a full briefing as alleged in appendix 4. There is a clear difference between the FCO letter in that appendix and Mr. Henderson' s letter, which suggests that he had not been consulted by the drafter of the letter before the report was issued. If he had been, I think that he would certainly have wished to revise it.
Yesterday, The Sunday Times reported that there would be a new row today in the House because details of the report were leaked to the FCO by me. The background is that the reporter—a respected reporter—sought to telephone me at 10.55 am on Saturday, rather belatedly. I did not return to my home until Sunday evening, when I collected the message on the answering machine. I therefore had no opportunity to put my side of the case before that damaging article was published in The Sunday Times yesterday. I now hope that The Sunday Times, as a responsible newspaper, will publish the facts next Sunday and, fairly, put the record straight.

Mr. David heath: I have no wish to defend any newspaper, but journalists at The Sunday Times will have read the Foreign Secretary's letter, which is printed in appendix 4 on page xv of the Committee's report, in which he clearly says that
the Chair of the FAC gave a full briefing to Andy Henderson".
That can be construed only as referring to a briefing on this issue, but what the hon. Gentleman has just said flatly contradicts that—so how could the Foreign Secretary have given that evidence to the Committee in that form?

Mr. Anderson: I can only surmise that the person who drafted the letter that went before the Standards and Privileges Committee and which appears in appendix 4 had not consulted Mr. Henderson before he did so. Obviously, the Foreign Secretary would have signed that letter in good faith.
In brief, I had given an hour of my time to help an official. During the meeting, the Sierra Leone report arose in passing. All that I said was general and in the public domain, as has been confirmed by the only other person involved—the official who was present. I fully expressed the Committee's known concerns, which could have been clear to anyone who had followed our proceedings.
My role in safeguarding the independence of Parliament against the Executive has been demonstrated clearly in the past two years by my chairing of the Foreign

Affairs Committee. I trust that my explanation will confirm that I did nothing improper. I therefore wholly refute the allegations and inferences made in the report.

Mr. Edward Davey: The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) for clarifying the fact that he did not give a briefing to the Foreign Office official the day before the publication of the report. However, his later remarks sowed seeds of doubt about what different officials believed and what information they had to hand. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given an undertaking that the minute will be made available.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I am happy to request that the minute be made available, but I have no powers to force anyone to divulge it.

Mr. Davey: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's clarification. I hope that the Leader of the House will give an undertaking to the House that she will ask her colleagues to ensure that the minute is placed in the Library because it will help to answer all the questions that hon. Members have raised today.

Mrs. Beckett: I have the utmost sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who has been placed, primarily by The Sunday Times, in a rather difficult position. He has, of course, reacted strongly to any suggestion that he has been wrongly involved in briefing. Coming to these matters with the benefit of a degree of impartiality and having read the references in the report, I did not interpret them in the way that my hon. Friend, let alone The Sunday Times, did, and it did not occur to me that any allegation was being made against my hon. Friend of the kind that he would clearly want to refute.
It seemed to me—as it does now that I have heard his explanation—that there has been a misunderstanding about the use of the word "full". My hon. Friend has made it clear that he gave an incoming official a full briefing about the work of the Select Committee, in which he touched on the matter of Sierra Leone. If the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) reads the Standards and Privileges Committee's report, he will find that it says that no use was made of the additional information. It does not, therefore, seem to me that the information was very germane to the report. I shall, of course, draw the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but whether he will feel that the matter needs to be pursued in that way or to that degree is another matter.

Mr. Davey: I do not think that the right hon. Lady's response is adequate. The House needs a promise that the minute will be published. The aim of this debate is to get to the bottom of the issues that the Committee was considering. The right hon. Lady seems to suggest that the newspaper misunderstood the report, but the report is very clear. On page xv, it says:
the Chair of the FAC gave a full briefing to Andy henderson, the head of the FCO Parliamentary Relations Department"—

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Read on.

Mr. Davey: I shall do so.


making clear that the bulk of the Report's criticism would be aimed at senior officials. Mr. Henderson minuted that exchange to officials within the FCO.
So, people knew what was going on. The right hon. Lady and her friends should take cognisance of that and be more open to the house.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: If this debate continues for the next 10 or 15 minutes, would there not be time for the Leader of the House to ask the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to allow the House to see the minute that was circulated after the meeting? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the right hon. Lady might want to describe in her winding-up speech the guidelines for Ministers on commenting on Select Committee reports when they cannot have had time to read them in detail? That seems one important issue. The right hon. Lady no doubt already has a briefing which she will read. How much nicer it would be if she also gave the Foreign Office briefing. The point has been made about the intensity of a noun and the strength of an adjective—"full briefing". That could be explained by the Government's disclosure, under open government rules, of a document that cannot be of any risk to anybody.

Mr. Davey: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I hope that the Leader of the House heard his two points and will act on them.

Mrs. Beckett: I can help the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley). The guidance given to Ministers on how to respond to Select Committee reports is unchanged from that issued in 1990, when the hon. Member for Worthing, West was a member of the Government.

Mr. Davey: The guidance may not have been changed, but the House is trying to get to the bottom of a serious matter. The right hon. Lady's Government tell the House time and again that they are in favour of open government. I would have thought that, in that spirit, she would ensure that the information is made available to the house.

Shona MeIsaac: The report on Sierra Leone was agreed to by the Committee on 3 February and published on 9 February. This briefing took place during that period. The hon. Gentleman will notice that, although paragraph 8 of the report relates to some of the other leaks, it states:
although improper, they do not raise questions of privilege".
The question of privilege is raised only at the draft stage—not when a report has been agreed.

Mr. Davey: We seem to be getting to a case of angels on a pinhead. The hon. Lady is making a point similar to that made by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) when he gave his interpretation of the report. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Committee on a very strong report which does not pull any punches, although I do not necessarily agree with his interpretation of what the report is trying to convey.

Mr. Tom Levitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davey: No; I want to make some progress.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said that he and his Committee were not criticising the Foreign Secretary, but they got dangerously close to doing so. As the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and hythe (Mr. Howard) said, it seems rather odd that a senior Minister receiving a leaked report from a Select Committee should not have instinctively understood that something was wrong, and known that he should not have received it and that he should declare doing so immediately.
Receiving a leak of a Select Committee report is almost tantamount to receiving stolen goods. We should be expecting a very high standard of behaviour among Ministers. We should be assured that their instincts—their understanding of our process and our culture—are such that they abide by the highest of standards in reacting to what was clearly a wrong act by an hon. Member, to which he has admitted. The Foreign Secretary and his colleagues on the Labour Benches are only making the issue worse. My advice is that they should stop digging.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As someone who has been in this place for 37 years, may I rather cynically say that the hon. Gentleman ought to understand that one of the less attractive features of the House of Commons is that there is one law that applies to Back Benchers and another law that tends to apply to senior Ministers? I find that attitude profoundly distasteful.

Mr. Davey: I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I think that many people around the House share his concerns.

Mr. Levitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davey: No. I have given way an awful lot, so I intend to continue.
Other serious questions have been raised in the debate. The Select Committee report asks the Prime Minister to amend the ministerial code. When the Leader of the House intervened on the right hon. Member for North-West hampshire (Sir G. Young), she said that the ministerial code was being reviewed, but that does not mean that it will be changed. It does not mean that the Government have accepted the proposal in the Select Committee report. The Leader of the House did not give us a timetable for the review, or any idea of when the House would have its conclusions. I hope that the status of that review will be clarified.
The report raises wider issues about the way that the Government govern and the way that Ministers and the press operation treat Parliament. Through that, it impinges on how the House protects the Select Committee system. It is a key part of our democracy to ensure that that Select Committee system is independent and has full integrity, so that we can hold the Government of the day to account.
Leaks, such as that which happened from the Foreign Affairs Committee, can damage the Committee system. They damage the Committee in the public's eyes, thereby detracting from the report's authority. They can damage the trust between Committee members and the efficiency of a Committee's workings, and thereby damage Parliament's ability to hold the Executive to account.
Therefore, I submit that the Government should be looking at not just these Committee recommendations, but the need to review and strengthen the Select Committee


system—and how we might make members of Select Committees more independent of their party. Select Committee members should be responsible to the House irrespective of party labels. Perhaps we should consider developing career paths within the Committees of the house, so that people can see their way to developing their political careers, not just within their party, but within Parliament.
We should consider making positions on Select Committees more prestigious. The prestige of those senior positions should equal that of a junior Minister, so that people who hold them take the independence of the work that they do very seriously indeed.
The report is about upholding the integrity of the Select Committee system. A stiff penalty has been served on the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), and I believe that all hon. Members will accept his full apology. However, to ensure that the integrity of the Committee system is maintained in future, more than the ministerial code needs to be changed. We need a clearer definition of the responsibilities of civil servants to Select Committees.
I do not know whether there is a code governing the relationships between civil servants and Select Committee members, but some of our exchanges today have shown that there is an urgent need for such a code, to ensure that the civil—

Mr. Levitt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way at last. Obviously, we need not bother with the Standards and Privileges Committee in future—it will be enough to have the hon. Gentleman investigating. He seems to have a gut instinct for determining what is right without bothering with the evidence. On this occasion, if he looks at the minutes of evidence, he will see the Civil Service and the Foreign Office responding in exactly the way that he asks. That is one of the benefits of the report—a report which, I believe, does correctly attribute blame. I speak as one who spent many hours serving on that Committee, investigating the matter in great detail.

Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman's comments are rather rash. I began my speech by paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and his colleagues—including the hon. Gentleman—for the quality of the report. However, I must say that, after what we have heard today, obviously that appendix is not exactly complete and we need more information to ensure that the valuable work that the Committee did is fully finished.
There is a need for a new code of behaviour for civil servants and Select Committees. There have been other debates about the duties of civil servants and whether they are confined to the Government of the day or whether they extend to the wider public and Members of this place. As we dig down into the details of this affair, it is clear that we need to be sure that civil servants will work for the House without prejudicing their position in working for Ministers. There needs to be a much clearer definition of those responsibilities.

Mr. David Wilshire: As the Member who first raised the question of a possible leak of this Foreign Affairs Select Committee document, I am grateful to you,

Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the chance to contribute to the debate. When I raised my concerns on a point of order on 9 February, it did not cross my mind that they would expose something so serious. In a way, I am pleased that they have; in a way, I am sorry. I am pleased because my concerns have exposed an abuse of Parliament by a colleague and by the Government. I am pleased also that the House has been enabled to reassert some crucial rights and privileges at a time when they are being undermined day by day by the Government. I am sorry, however, because of the personal difficulties that this matter has caused a colleague, albeit one from a different party. He is a colleague with whom I have enjoyed working and come to respect.
The report from the Standards and Privileges Committee raises two vital matters. These are the conduct expected of us as Members and the conduct expected of Her Majesty's Government. Like others, I want to say little about the first matter, which is the conduct expected of us all. The report makes it crystal clear that what happened was wrong and worthy of punishment. I fail to see how any of us could disagree with that conclusion. However, there is a redeeming feature in this aspect of this sorry affair. The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) swiftly admitted his actions. He did not hesitate to agree that they were wrong, he promptly offered the Committee a fulsome apology and he immediately resigned. Once the report that we are debating is behind us, I believe that we should draw a line in the sand regarding the hon. Gentleman's conduct.
However, I do not consider that the report closes the issue of the Government's conduct. In my opinion, and as we have heard the argument developed this afternoon, the report requires us to pursue matters more vigorously. The contrast between the response of the hon. Member for Dundee, West and that of the Foreign Secretary could not be more stark. Nowhere do I see any apology from the Foreign Secretary or from his permanent secretary for keeping, circulating and using a leaked document.
Instead of an apology, the Foreign Secretary contents himself with offering us weasel words in an attempt to justify his behaviour. He claims that the lack of clarity in existing rules entitled him to ignore the words "Confidential—For Committee Use Only", which appear in large letters at the top of each page of the leaked document. That is a pathetic attempt to wriggle out of his proper responsibilities.
The right hon. Gentleman suggests also that a Foreign Secretary can sneak into the private meetings of Select Committees and listen to confidential discussions. That is the most stupid defence of wrong-doing that I have ever heard. If there was no sense of wrong-doing in the Foreign Secretary or the Foreign Office, why did officials react with alarm and concern when they saw the leaked document? Why were documents destroyed rather than returned? I mention return because the report says that documents should be returned. As late as lunchtime today, not one page of one copy of the leaked document has ever been returned to the Clerk of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
In his evidence the Foreign Secretary claimed that no use was made of the leaked document. However, I raised my original point of order because someone was patently using information that could have come only from a leak,


in an attempt to rubbish our Committee and our conclusions before a single official copy had been handed to anyone.
The evidence given to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges by the Permanent Secretary is not much better. It amazes me that diplomats who provide what the Permanent Secretary described to the Foreign Affairs Committee as a Rolls-Royce service require a memo to be circulated before they realise that receiving leaked documents, circulating them, using them, keeping them and failing to return them is plain wrong. I cannot comprehend why they need a memo to tell them that.
There is one thing about the evidence from the officials that does not surprise me. It does not surprise me to read in the report that they cannot remember when the leaked document arrived, they do not know how many copies were made, and they are not sure why they took weeks to tell the Foreign Secretary. Such a shambles led to the Sierra Leone report itself. The shambles revealed this afternoon led the Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend—if I may call him that—the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), to issue a stout and utterly convincing defence of himself against more shambles from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Mr. David heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Before he leaves the subject of the evidence from the permanent secretary, has he read the evidence on page 17 of the report in answer to the questions from the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams)? There the permanent secretary seems to be advancing the proposition that Select Committees should not concern themselves with the way in which a Department has handled affairs of state, only with what it might do in the future. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is an extraordinary position for a permanent secretary to adopt?

Mr. Wilshire: It may seem extraordinary to some people, but after my experience of the Sierra Leone inquiry, nothing surprises me about the conduct, attitudes and comments of officials in the FCO. In principle, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but on the specific point, I am amazed that he is amazed.
The eighth report raises another issue that the House needs to address—the role of the Prime Minister in this shabby episode. When he came to office in 1997, the Prime Minister made much of his changes to the ministerial code. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and hythe (Mr. Howard) made exactly this point. After much trumpeting of moral virtue, what a pity that the Prime Minister overlooked the simple matter of leaked documents when he made his changes. What a pity that he waited for the report before making any further changes. The facts were clear and were admitted in February. It is now July, yet the Prime Minister has done nothing.
On numerous occasions, the Prime Minister promised the nation that he would dismiss erring Ministers. Given the clear evidence in the report of wrong-doing by the Foreign Secretary and by officials, when will the Prime Minister sack the Foreign Secretary?
As the report makes clear, the shortcomings revealed by the episode go right to the top. The House must not allow itself to be stopped in its tracks simply by making

the hon. Member for Dundee, West a scapegoat. The House must demand this afternoon an unconditional and immediate apology from the Foreign Secretary, and must insist that the Prime Minister belatedly takes action, and does not merely carry out a review.
The report reminds me of three things. First, among any group of 659 human beings, weakness will always rear its ugly head from time to time. We wish that it would not, but we know that it will. Secondly, individual Members of Parliament can still act honourably, even when their conduct falls below the standard that our constituents are entitled to expect of us. Thirdly, the Government's conduct is all too often disgraceful. The report makes it crystal clear that the behaviour within the Foreign Office was not an abberation; it was entirely within the approach to the government of the country adopted by new Labour.
I believe that the Foreign Secretary should be in the dock this afternoon alongside the hon. Member for Dundee, West. Although the hon. Gentleman had the decency to own up instantly, to apologise and to resign, the fact that the Foreign Secretary has still done none of those tells the nation a great deal about the Government.

5 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I genuinely had not intended to speak this afternoon, but I have been listening intently to the speeches and this is one of those occasions on which speeches are important and possibly make a difference.
Let me say first that I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) behaved in a very dignified way. My heart goes out to him, because, as one or two hon. Members may recollect, 32 years ago I was in a not dissimilar position having fallen foul of the Committee of Privileges in relation to a visit of the Select Committee on Science and Technology to Porton Down. I was hauled to the Bar of the House and the Speaker put on his black cap. Thankfully, that does not happen today, but it is a very unnerving and disagreeable experience to be hauled before the House of Commons in such a way. I can say only that my hon. Friend behaved with dignity and grace, and all credit to him.
I have one point to make. I have listened to the speeches, in particular those of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and hythe (Mr. Howard). The speech of the former home Secretary was understandably complex and, without reading and re-reading it, one could not sensibly pass any kind of judgment on it, but, whatever one thinks of those speeches, my whole instinct is that this is a matter between Parliament and the Executive. It is of such importance that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary ought to come to the house, tomorrow or the day after, to answer the questions that have been raised.
For the sake of Parliament, this matter cannot be left in limbo. We cannot leave it at that because—however competent my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House may be, and she is indeed competent—no Leader of the House is in a position to answer for the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office in such circumstances.

Mr. David Davis: I commend the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, on his report. Given the evidence presented to him, it must have been extraordinarily difficult to bring it together, particularly as a unanimous report. I understand the problems of achieving that better than most. It must have been extremely awkward to have reached some of the conclusions in the report, but it was probably the only set of conclusions that the Committee could have reached. That fact alone will have implications for the future, and I shall elaborate on those in a moment.
I wish to focus on three issues: first, the point made by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne about the importance of breaching Select Committee integrity; secondly, the issue that must have presented the most difficulty for the Committee—the credibility of the evidence presented to it, and the problems that that created; and, thirdly, what should be done about such matters in the future. I am thinking more about the Select Committee system and the privilege system than about the substance of the report.
How damaging has this matter been? Frankly, it has been extraordinarily damaging, simply because the problem that we face—and the problem for the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), who, I agree, has behaved with great dignity—hits at the mechanics of how the Select Committee system works. Select Committees have no absolute power. Most of them cannot dismiss, punish, change policy or allocate money. They can do nothing except expose information to the public gaze, comment on policy and outcomes and, in the final analysis, embarrass the Executive. That is their only weapon, but it would be surprising if the Executive of any political persuasion accepted that embarrassment passively.
That is the leverage, and the breach that we are discussing hits at the fulcrum of that leverage. Once an Executive knows in detail about an upcoming report, it can do any number of things to destroy the report's effectiveness. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, my predecessor as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, knows, when a Committee produces 50 reports a year, the outcomes are known to the Government because they were there for the evidence sessions and know what happened. Moreover, there is a timetable for the publication of reports. As a result, the Public Accounts Committee, in extremis, is always susceptible.
I can give three examples that demonstrate what Governments, in general, can do. A year or two ago, the PAC produced a report on social security fraud. Unusually, the Government issued a Green Paper and made a statement to the House the week before in order to take away the report's impact. On another occasion, we issued a report on what was, at that point, the Government's fairly mixed performance on the millennium bug. The day before its publication, a very senior Minister went on television to talk about the good parts of the Government's work on the millennium bug, in an attempt to lessen the report's impact. On another occasion, an embarrassing report was due out on the Sunday and it was leaked on the Saturday.
There are dozens of other methods that Executives use. Select Committee Chairmen have to deal with them, and generally they do so without too much difficulty. However, the breach of a Select Committee's integrity by letting the Government know in advance what its report says allows the Executive any number of mechanisms for destroying the one lever that Select Committees have. If we leave such breaches unfettered, they will bankrupt our democracy. At present, Select Committees are the strongest check on the Executive that the House has. Clearly, therefore, this matter is of enormous importance. For that reason alone, I agree with the draconian penalty recommended by the Standards and Privileges Committee. If we do not take draconian action, we shall send out the wrong message.
I wish to turn now to a more detailed point—the credibility of the evidence presented to the Committee. Given the traditional procedures, the Committee had no choice but to come to the conclusion that it did. I do not agree with my hon. Friends who have disputed that. The house, however, has a separate duty to assess the evidence placed before it in the report. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) about contradictory information from the Foreign Office, so I shall cite some of the evidence provided to illustrate to the House how much credibility we should give to it.
Paragraph 12 on page 6 of the report says:
Mr Hood, Mr. Cook's political adviser, explained that he had come across the document by chance".
It is interesting that the document should have been come across by chance. Mr. Hood saw it as his duty to pull it out for himself, but,
he had not alerted Mr. Cook to it straight away because there had been no opportunity to do so".
Mr. Hood is a special adviser—the political adviser to the Foreign Secretary—and the report is about the hottest issue of the day, and in the headlines at every turn. Mr. Hood was unable to find time to raise the matter with the Foreign Secretary for three weeks, although he admits in the evidence that he thought that he ought to have raised it with him at some point. For three weeks he did not find an opportunity to do so. I leave it to the House to judge the credibility of that point.
The report says that Mr. Hood
had not thought it was wrong to retain the leaked draft but he knew it would have been wrong to have acted on it in any way.
He then said that he handed it to Mr. John Williams. Mr. Williams is not a policy wonk or someone who sits in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and deliberates at great length on the policy implications of reports; his job is to handle the media—media manipulation. He was previously the political editor of The Mirror, so surely he would not sit idly by, given such a hot potato to handle. He is, in effect, a political appointee in the news department.
According to the report:
Mr. Williams, of the News Department, said that he was unaware that he should not have seen the leaked draft.
This man had been the political editor of The Mirror, but he was unaware that there was anything wrong in a Department having a leaked document of a Select Committee. The report says:


He regretted that he had focused on it too narrowly as a matter of media strategy.

Shona McIsaac: To be fair to Mr. Williams, the evidence shows that he stated:
I was obviously aware that if I said anything that depended on knowledge of that leak that would be wrong. I did not do so.

Mr. Davis: The fact of the matter is that Mr. Hood handed it to Mr. Williams. What did he think Mr. Williams was going to do with it? Think about it for three weeks? That is an untenable line, but I leave it to the House to make its own judgment.
First, a special adviser does not see the political significance of the report. Then, an ex-political editor does not know that it is a problem for a Select Committee report to be leaked to a Department. Then we come to Mr. Grant, Mr. Cook's private secretary. I am an ex-Foreign Office Minister, and hon. Members should understand what a private secretary is, because he is not someone who does the typing. He is a high-flying, highly qualified member of the Foreign Office who will almost certainly end up as an ambassador somewhere or, like Sir John Kerr, will become the permanent secretary of the Department—that is particularly true of the private secretary to the Foreign Secretary.
In the Foreign Office, one of the skills people are required to develop as a diplomat is political acuity and political antennae. According to the report, Mr. Grant said that
he had not appreciated the status of the document".
He did not realise that it was important enough to give to the Foreign Secretary, despite the fact that the prospect of it was on the front pages of the newspapers, and it was potentially the most embarrassing matter facing the Foreign Office.
The report goes on to say of Mr. Grant:
Likewise, he had not informed the Foreign Secretary about the earlier leak of the draft report on EU enlargement because there was nothing in the substance of the report which the Foreign Secretary needed to know.
That undermines his earlier argument. If there was something in the text of the report that the Foreign Secretary needed to know, he would have passed it on. I have heard many comments about how busy the Foreign Secretary was at that time. Foreign Secretaries are always busy. I have served two Foreign Secretaries, and I cannot think of a time when their special adviser, their politically appointed press officer—although we did not have such people—and their principal private secretary were unable to get to see them for three weeks.
My concern is that the Committee had no choice. When faced with evidence that had no obvious flaw in its internal logic, how could the Committee penetrate it? In future, the House should arm the Standards and Privileges Committee with rather heavier weapons.

Mrs. Beckett: I have just been trying to refresh my memory in regard to Mr. Hood's evidence to the Select Committee. Notwithstanding the summary given by the right hon. Gentleman on the basis of his experience as a junior Foreign Office Minister, Mr. Hood's evidence makes it clear that, at the time in question, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was dealing simultaneously with the hostage crisis in Yemen, with arrangements for

the Contact Group—he was trying to avert a war in the former Yugoslavia; Kosovo was also a problem—and with a number of other matters.
Mr. Hood said that one reason why he thought that the issue was not important enough to be drawn to the Foreign Secretary's attention immediately was the fact that he was entirely sure that there was nothing that the Foreign Office could or should do with the report. Does that not put Mr. Hood's evidence, and his decision, in a rather different context from that which the right hon. Gentleman has sought to portray?

Mr. Davis: On many occasions during the periods of office of the two Foreign Secretaries whom I served, crises arose at the same time. For instance, there have been Cyprus crises, Turkish crises and European Union crises, all at once. The right hon. Lady obviously does not realise that part of the task of a Foreign Secretary is to deal with such matters simultaneously. The Foreign Secretary has a broad reach, and there are plenty of times when he has half a dozen big issues on his plate. What is being proposed is implausible, at least in my judgment.

Sir Peter Emery: Is it not even more implausible, given that the Foreign Office is being referred to the Department of Trade and Industry in regard to a possible prosecution for an action that may have been taken by one of its officials? This is not something that happens every day; it is most unusual, and I should have thought that it was immensely important for it to be drawn to the Foreign Secretary's attention.

Mr. Davis: My right hon. Friend's point is reinforced by the evidence of Sir John Kerr. He said that he did not understand the significance of the report, in parliamentary terms, because—I paraphrase—he was so shocked by the import for himself of the point raised by my right hon. Friend.
My argument, however, goes deeper than the point that the Leader of the House tried to pick up. How does the Standards and Privileges Committee test evidence such as this? It has no access to the necessary judicial procedures. The evidence should be taken on oath, separately, and probably in closed session, so that people cannot collude. That is what should be done if such a problem arises in the future.
Another problem relates to the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. He or she can investigate infractions of standards in great detail—if any of us are accused of such infractions, he or she can have access to our bank accounts and to a number of other sources of evidence—but I understand that that does not apply to issues of privilege. That gives rise to two points, one of which was raised some months ago by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).
First, the ministerial code is, in effect, outside the powers of the house. It is adjudicated by the Government—by the Prime Minister, in the final analysis. That is wrong: it puts the Prime Minister in an impossible position. He must deal with political dimensions at the same time as dealing with natural justice dimensions, and he must simultaneously deal with the integrity of the Government. That is an impossible demand within the context of government. The ministerial code should be policed by the house, at least in the first instance.
The second point relates to the fact that we have to rely on the Department itself for the evidence. Some months ago, in a debate in the house, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) mentioned the idea of a parliamentary investigating facility. We should not have to rely on the report of an ex-civil servant, which we are told is impartial; we should be able to rely on a parliamentary officer, who should have absolute access in the same way as the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Committee could then reach a judgment that it could be authoritatively sure was based solely on hard facts, rather than on a defensive line put up by the Government.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) has introduced the question of whether, on privileges issues, there should be an investigating officer for the House, whose report could be made available to the Committee before the Committee comes to its conclusions and puts its own report and recommendations to the House. That is an interesting idea. There may be other occasions when it can be discussed. I am not sure that it is an issue that should be settled in the eighth report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges.
I thank the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), for the way in which he introduced the report; he did so very fairly. He said that there were two forms of unanimity, and the first form rightly applied to the Committee. It is not to make a point about any other Committee, but simply to point out that there was nothing of particular difficulty in reaching conclusions on the matter. The most important conclusion that we reached was in the interim response to the Speaker, which said that Members who had received material that they should not have received should return it straight away. That is clear. It is good English. It is good practice. I hope that it will be followed.
I hope that the next thing that I say will not be seen as a contradiction. The report does not deal with material that is wrongly leaked to the press. One of the first things that happened when I joined the House was that a Committee of the House recommended that either the editor or a journalist from The Economist should be punished, having printed something that they had wrongly received. With rare exceptions, which I cannot contemplate at the moment, I do not believe that the House should be in the business of trying to punish journalists for doing their job, which is to make available to all what is known to a few.
As I understand it, the Foreign Affairs Committee looked seriously at the issue on the basis that it was a leak to a Department whose actions were being considered by the Select Committee. Publication in a newspaper may have come about because of a bad act, but, once something has been published, it is open to all to see at the same time; it is not just for the privileged. It may be designed to undermine the proceedings of a Select Committee, but it has been done differently and more openly. That is not to justify a Member going to the press, but to try to draw a distinction. It is worth spelling out that we are not trying to muzzle the press, even if it obtains material following an action that cannot be justified.
That debate needs to take place on another occasion. A fair number of reports from the Standards and Privileges Committee are not usually debated because they do not recommend action by the house, yet some of those reports are as significant as the ones that recommend an action by an hon. Member or the House itself.
On another occasion, it would be useful to go into what I regard as some of the misconceptions in today's article by Peter Riddell in The Times, which seems to bring together a number of issues that should not properly be brought together in that way. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for haltemprice and howden said, in this case, the commissioner does not come into the eighth report, so I will not waste the house's time by following up some of the different views that Peter Riddell could have mentioned.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and hythe (Mr. Howard), the former home Secretary, has made a strong case. The whole House will be grateful for the way in which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken.
Had I worked rather more seriously at university, I should probably have joined the civil service, like my brother, father and grandfather, so I have more of a public than a political service background. We could possibly build too much on those two words "full briefing" in the letter from the Foreign Secretary. It would have been interesting to have heard from the official concerned. It would be interesting to see the report that he circulated in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. If the Leader of the House does not disclose it this afternoon, I am sure that one Committee or another will obtain it. I do not regard it as the sort of paper that the civil service or Ministers can keep secret, and I see no reason why they should.
In one of the parliamentary answers that I was most pleased with when I was a Minister—I cannot say proud—I got two sentences into one line of one column of Hansard:
I made a mistake. I apologise."—[Official Report, 2 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 84.]
As a Minister, it is not very difficult to say that, especially if it is true. The Leader of the House says that Ministers in the previous Government did not always abide by conventions or guidance in responding to Select Committee reports—that is the standard response that one expects from the present Government. Ministers keep reminding us that the previous Government were never perfect, but they seldom confess to any mistakes of their own; they seldom come here to say that they are sorry. The right hon. Lady should institute a review, perhaps by an outside person, to see how many times the present Government have managed to get publicity that responds instantly, in an adversarial way, to a Select Committee report on the day it is published, or on the days before.
A bad trend has been set. However, the Government—who, understandably, consider the next day's newspaper headlines to be a very significant part of the parliamentary process—should understand that responding in that manner to Select Committee reports contradicts the parliamentary process. They should read those reports, consider them and allow them to be published so that other people, too, may read them.
On the day on which the Committee's ninth report was published, reports on Teletext stated that "So-and-so was cleared", whereas anyone who had read that report would


realise that that statement was not so much relevant as part of a briefing to ensure that the report itself—to which many civil servants had given much time—would be obscured.
If we demand that civil servants should be able to justify every adjective, noun and comma used in every piece of paper that they circulate in their Departments, in briefings to Ministers or for ministerial statements to the house, the civil service machine will only work more slowly and less effectively. When it is discovered that an inaccurate statement has been made, it would be much better for Ministers to state that in a parliamentary answer and to spell out the facts.
Openness is very important for democracy. If there were slightly less pride, arrogance and control, the relationship between Parliament and the Government would work better. It is more becoming for hon. Members, even Labour Members, to say to Ministers, "Try to tell us what you have got wrong as well as what you have got right. Try to give us the information that we should have, so that we are able to judge whether your action is fully or only partly justifiable."

Sir Peter Emery: I shall be fairly brief, but, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, there are two matters that I should like to draw to the attention of the house, and one matter that I ask the House to consider.
First, the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) made an absolutely frank statement to the Select Committee before any Committee member knew anything about what had really happened, and he submitted his resignation to the Chairman immediately before he spoke. He behaved entirely honourably in Committee about the mistake that he had made. That should be to his credit, and that credit should be given not only by Labour Members, but by an Opposition Member. I am very willing so to do.
Secondly, I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on his speech, in which he outlined a great deal about the Foreign Secretary's position—a matter to which I shall return in a moment.
Page xv, paragraph 2, of the report states:
On the day before publication the Chair of the FAC gave a full briefing to Andy henderson, the head of the FCO Parliamentary Relations Department".
As a Committee member, I had no knowledge of that fact, which the Chairman had not mentioned. That paragraph in the report was the first instance on which it was drawn to my attention.
Today, we have had a very important statement from the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee; it was right that that statement was made. I have no reason to disbelieve any of that statement. The hon. Gentleman has behaved quite honourably in all of his dealings with the Committee. It is therefore imperative that the Foreign Office—which seems to be trying to drag him into the matter by the statement on page xv—should support the hon. Gentleman's statement by making it absolutely clear that no use was made of
either the draft or the additional information from Mr. Anderson or Mr. Ross"—

which Andy Henderson himself minuted and said that he circulated in briefing the press. I am sorry, but what the devil were those people up to? What was the publicity department doing? Those people are there to defend the Secretary of State. The idea that any information that they had would not be used for the benefit of the Department is nonsensical. If we believe that, we believe in "Alice in Wonderland".
Rather than retaining any doubt or criticism of the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Foreign Office is obliged to make public the minute by Mr. Andy Henderson, so the matter can be cleared up and the Chairman can proceed, knowing that his statement to the House is complete.
We have criticised the Foreign Secretary for not apologising to the house, and we have heard the Leader of the House say that no Foreign Secretary had made more papers available to the Committee ever before. Yes—but, by Jove, they had to be forced out of him. They did not come willingly. They had to be dragged out like bad teeth. One of the witnesses whom we wished to see was refused, and we never saw that witness. The concept that there was great openness from the Foreign Secretary is a slight myth, and the response from members of the Foreign Affairs Committee shows that they are not willing to run against my views.

Mr. Wilshire: Given what my right hon. Friend has just said, how does he rate our chances of seeing the minute to which the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) referred?

Sir Peter Emery: If I have anything to do with it, it will be a 100 per cent. chance. If the Foreign Office has anything to do with it, it will be a 0 per cent. chance. It will not be done willingly—it will have to be dragged out of the Foreign Office yet again.
I have always wanted to believe that the Foreign Office was one of the leading Departments. I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary there for three years, so perhaps I am slightly influenced. Of course, that was a hell of a long time ago—from 1961 to 1963, before most Members sitting in the Chamber today were in the house. Since then, and under any Government, the Department has had a high reputation, as have its Secretaries of State.
The report has left a nasty taste with members of the Select Committee. Real honour was not one of the thoughts being considered in the way in which the Department dealt with the Committee. Nor did the Foreign Office do anything other than try at every moment to hide anything that it could possibly keep from the Committee's inquiry. There is the unpleasantness.
The Foreign Secretary has not come here to apologise. The strange thing about this House is that if one comes to apologise, the House is forgiving. When one does not and one is wrong, we want to find out why. The Foreign Secretary has not apologised, and he is wrong. It is right that we ensure that we continue with the closest examination of him and the Department while he is still Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Alan Williams: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), I have been in the House for 35 years, and


like so many right hon. and hon. Members here today, I have been a member of the Executive, but have also spent substantial time on the Back Benches. We tend not to be overblown about the importance of our work, which the press often accuse us of, but all too often to overlook it. That has been apparent to some extent today.
It is salutary to think that we are the mother of parliaments, but the average person's sole involvement in the parliamentary process, in 80 years of life, will be to have cast 20 votes. That is democracy, but democracy in the meaningful sense of the accountability of the Executive exists only in Parliament. That is why we are here today protecting the rights of our Committee.
Setting aside the politicking that always goes on in the House—we have been in opposition for long spells and fully understand the frustrations of Opposition Members—the most important thing to emerge from the report is that we have at last found a way of closing the channels. Leaks are only as important as the distance that they can get. If we can stop the movement of documents, we go a long way towards ending the problem of leaks to Ministers, and I think that the report achieves that.
I argued that it was not enough to call only the three officials, and that to call the permanent secretary would send a message throughout Whitehall. It did: within hours, Whitehall was responding. The permanent secretary brought us a message telling us that, even though he had been in the civil service for 33 years, he did not know that it was a breach of parliamentary privilege to handle leaked documents, but that from that day on, it would be treated as a disciplinary matter for any civil servant to handle documents other than to return them to the Committee.
That was important not only in imposing a discipline, but because of the career effect of that discipline. We underlined that by saying that the Committee would treat it as an act of contempt of Parliament for any civil servant to conspire to further the leak of a document. That is a major breakthrough for the legislature, and for that reason, if for no other, the report is extremely important.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I join those who have thanked the Standards and Privileges Committee for its work and for the report. I echo the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who put his finger, in a few measured words, on the nub of what these proceedings should be about. His speech and the equally measured contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) were in line with the measured tone of the report, although one might not have thought so from some of what has been said.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne made it clear that the report did not criticise my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and that before this incident, there was no guidance on what a Minister should do should he or his civil servants receive a leaked Select Committee document, but he also made it clear that to handle such a document would now be regarded as a contempt of the house.
It was clear from the debate that many thought the report too measured, including the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and hythe (Mr. Howard). He criticised the Committee, not only implicitly but explicitly, for not having gone further.
In this debate, the Committee's report has been stretched to breaking point, if not beyond. It was the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and hythe who said that the report described a systematic attempt by the Government to suborn the Select Committee system. He said that the Foreign Secretary should be forced to come to the House to answer questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) indicated that he had not wholly taken in the detail of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, but thought that the tone of his contribution was so grave that there was something in that argument. I cannot agree either with the right hon. and learned Gentleman or my hon. Friend, and I take this opportunity to explain that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in Edinburgh at a most important meeting with the Brazilian Foreign Minister. Relations with Brazil, as all right hon. and hon. Members know, are of considerable importance to this Government and this country, and that is why my right hon. Friend is not able to be present in the Chamber this evening.

Mr. Howard: First, is the right hon. Lady suggesting that it is beyond the wit of the business managers to have scheduled this debate for an occasion on which the Foreign Secretary was in London, as he is from time to time? Secondly, what would she have done if she had received a leaked copy of a report from a Select Committee?

Mrs. Beckett: This report is not about my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, as the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee made plain. The timing of the debate was geared to providing, as speedily as we reasonably could, an opportunity to debate the report and the unfortunate issue of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), who was criticised in the report and whose suspension was proposed by it. That was the main consideration behind the timing of the debate, and properly so.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and hythe was strong in his criticisms, but not as strong as the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who called on the Prime Minister to sack the Foreign Secretary and was also critical of the Prime Minister himself, as if the affair in some way involved him, which of course it does not. Therefore, it is right to remind the house, if only briefly, that the Government in no way, shape or form were the originator of the leak, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West made clear; that the Government made no use whatever of the leak, as has been made crystal clear—indeed, no hon. Member has even tried to allege that; and that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said in his capacity as Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, the Government made no attempt, once they were in receipt of the leaked document, to use it to influence the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Wilshire: The right hon. Lady is making much play of what the Government did not do, but can she tell


the House why the Government have still not returned a single sheet of a single copy of the leaked document to the Clerk of the Committee?

Mrs. Beckett: No, I cannot. Indeed, I was not aware of that point, but there may be a simple explanation for it and I am sure that it will be made available to the hon. Gentleman.

Shona McIsaac: My right hon. Friend may not have noticed, because it is only a tiny part of the minutes of evidence, but one official is quoted as saying that the documents ended up in the shredder.

Mrs. Beckett: That unworthy thought had crossed my mind and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the matter clear.
In the course of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) understandably raised the issue of the interpretation that has been put on the briefing meeting he had—perfectly properly—with an incoming senior official in the Foreign Office, and how that has been reported.
In that context, there has also been some reference to my earlier intervention, in which I pointed out that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had made available to the Select Committee information that was unprecedentedly full. Some play was made, by Liberal Democrat Members, by the hon. Member for Spelthorne and by the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery)—whose constituency is one that, since the last round of Boundary Commission changes, I fear that I have increasing difficulty in remembering—about the fact that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did not rush forward, with a glad and eager heart, to offer access to any and every paper and telegram in the Foreign Office.
I do not consider that surprising in any way, shape or form. Indeed, my right hon. Friend would have been lacking in his duty if he had not thought that he ought to weigh very carefully what was certainly a very major precedent—some would call it a dangerous precedent—in terms of the information that he made available to the Select Committee.
In dialogue with each other, hon. Members then expressed confidence that the minute produced by Mr. Henderson after the briefing from my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East would have to be dragged out of the Foreign Office. That was intended to illustrate the lack of openness of the Foreign Secretary.
However, I have to disappoint those hon. Members. While we have been listening with eager attention to their observations, I have received a message from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in which he states that he is entirely willing for that document to be released to the house. The document will, indeed, be made available.

Sir Peter Emery: I congratulate the Leader of the House on her success in getting documents released. It is much greater than that achieved by the Foreign Affairs Committee.
However, I remind the right hon. Lady of a recommendation made by the Select Committee on Procedure way back in the 1990–91 Session. It was that it was beholden on Departments to make certain that they

made available to a Select Committee all documentation relevant to an inquiry being held by that Select Committee. The recommendation was made as a result of a Select Committee inquiry into Concorde, when the fact that not all the necessary documentation was made available to that Committee was referred to the Procedure Committee.

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the investigation into the Concorde affair was held a considerable period of years ago. Nevertheless, although all Governments seek to provide Select Committees with the right information, some documents are held to be of such sensitivity that they should remain confidential within government. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman and other members of the Foreign Affairs Committee have confirmed that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary released unprecedented information.
I shall conclude with one of the earliest points made in this short, but stretching debate. Although no supporting evidence was produced, some Conservative Members stated that the alleged behaviour was typical of the Government's misuse of the house. The shadow Leader of the House prayed in aid of that argument the Government's use of the Government information service, the number of special advisers, and so on.
However, the allegations about the use of the information service have been repeatedly and clearly refuted. As to the special advisers, the Government considered that, as a matter of professionalism, it was right to employ more than were employed by the previous Administration, at least at the end of their term of office. We have also thought it right, again as a matter of professionalism, to treble the money made available to Opposition parties in the house, in order that they may more adequately carry out their duties. I have not noticed any acknowledgement that that rather runs counter to the suggestion that the Government in some way are trying to misuse and abuse Parliament.
My final point is to quote from the conventions for Governments responding to Select Committee reports. Those were drafted as long ago as 1990 and were set out in a letter from the then President of the Council, who I think was the Deputy Prime Minister at the time, to the Chairman of the Liaison Committee. The passage that is particularly germane to this debate is that the document
asserted the right of Ministers to respond publicly to criticisms of the Government as robustly as seemed appropriate; this would include criticisms in the Committee's Report itself, inaccuracy or mis-statement in media reporting, or public criticisms made by individual Committee members".
The advice continued:
Ministers would feel free to respond immediately to recommendations",
where that was thought necessary.
Despite much that has been said in this debate, frankly, the substance of the complaints made by the Opposition are not borne out by the weight of the evidence on which they rest. This is a sufficiently serious and worrying matter in itself.
Like many other members who have spoken in the debate, I recognise the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West has done in the House and on foreign affairs, and I regret the circumstances that led to


his suspension from the house, although of course I respect the judgment of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, as do we all.
I fear that in an attempt to exploit a measured and sensible report, which warns us all about the proper respect for the work of Select Committees and clearly warns Government Departments and civil servants about future conduct, an attempt has been made to erect an edifice of criticism of the Government, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, which is not borne out. Frankly, the evidence will not bear it.
Question put:—
The House proceeded to a Division—
JANE KENNEDY and MR. KEVIN HUGHES were appointed Tellers for the Ayes; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, MADAM SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
Resolved,
That this House—
(i) approves the Eighth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 607); and
(ii) accordingly suspends Mr. Ernie Ross, Member for Dundee West, from the service of the House for ten sitting days.

ESTIMATES DAY

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

ESTIMATES 1999–2000

Class I, Vote 4

School Inspections

[Relevant documents: The Fourth Report from the Education and Employment Committee, on The Work of Ofsted, HC 62-I; Department for Education and Employment and Office for Standards in Education Departmental Report: The Government's Expenditure Plans 1999–2000 to 2000–01, (Cm 4202.)]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum not exceeding £59,500,000 be granted to her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 2000 for expenditure by the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England on administration and inspection, including the inspection of schools and other educational institutions, funded nursery providers and local education authorities—[Jane Kennedy.]

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: We move rapidly from Sierra Leone to Ofsted—one of these subjects is controversial.
As Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Employment I am pleased to report to the House on our inquiry into Ofsted. On 14 June, we published a unanimous report following a 10-month inquiry. We heard extensive evidence. We received written evidence and heard oral evidence and—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but far too many conversations are going on. This is an important debate.

Mr. Wicks: We heard oral evidence from many people, including union and professional associations, Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in England, and the Minister for School Standards. For comparative purposes, we also heard evidence from the chief inspector of further education and Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in Wales. Obviously, we are grateful to all our witnesses.
Many members of the Committee and our staff also had the opportunity to visit schools that were undergoing an inspection. I suppose that, on occasion, that created a slightly comic spectacle. I was in a class in a school in greater London where the Ofsted inspector was inspecting the teacher, Her Majesty's inspector was observing the Ofsted inspector and I, as Chairman of the Select Committee, was observing everyone, I suppose. In practice, it was a most valuable facility and we are grateful for it. I thank all those who helped us with our inquiry, in particular the chief inspector of the Office for Standards in Education and his staff.
Interestingly, Parliament first granted public funds to schools in 1833 and inspection followed quickly thereafter, in 1839. There has more or less always been a link between state education and the inspection of schools. By the 1960s, there were about 500 HMIs.
Ofsted was established under the previous Government by the Education (Schools) Act 1992. The office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools was then created. Although we focused chiefly in our report on schools inspection, and I will mainly focus on that today, HMCI also has responsibility for inspecting local education authorities, initial and in-service teacher training, nursery education, youth services and further education provided by local education authorities. I understand that the Government will shortly be extending the powers of the chief inspector.
Ofsted was created by the previous Government as part of a drive to raise education standards. Other developments of the time were the national curriculum, national testing and the publication of school results. We can see the work of Ofsted in the context of education standards, but also perhaps in terms of the "audit society", as some people have described it. The provision of information to parents is crucial, but we see the growth of regulation and inspectorates in other areas of public policy. For example, there are developments in social services and health—the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is an interesting example of that. It is all about consumer perspectives and the accountability of public services.
The main emphasis that I want to bring to the debate is that the Committee fully endorses the principle of external inspection of our schools and other education institutions. That is a most important conclusion in the report.
Schools are inspected by teams, which are led by a registered inspector. The contracts are awarded by Ofsted. Inspection takes place within a framework that is drawn up by Ofsted. We found when taking evidence that the framework was widely praised. For example, Professor Michael Barber, who now heads the Department's standards effectiveness unit, says that it was
very strongly based on education research, school effectiveness and school improvement".
It is also interesting that the National Union of Teachers found that the framework provided
a valuable check list for school improvement, not least for schools to use themselves".
There is thus much support for the framework.
We questioned two aspects of the framework and made recommendations, one of which related to special schools. We noted that more special schools than other schools are judged to be under-performing, and made comments and recommendations accordingly. In particular, we said:
Given the importance of this issue, we recommend that Ofsted keep under review the way in which the Framework is used in the inspection of special schools. We also recommend that the DfEE keep under review the way the National Curriculum is applied in special schools.
We also made comments about pupil mobility and the need for Ofsted to take more account of that when making judgments about inspection. Clearly, if there is a great deal of pupil mobility, as there is in many of our schools, that will inevitably affect school performance, and Ofsted must keep that under review.
In general, we recognise that any inspection can be stressful—we have just been discussing the inspection of MPs—but the majority of schools found inspection teams professional and courteous. Undoubtedly, however, there


is stress. Many of our witnesses highlighted the negative impact of inspections on teachers. For example, the report states:
A GP wrote to us highlighting the 'significant symptoms of stress' suffered by three teachers at a local primary school, which were directly related to an impending inspection in the second cycle of inspections. The GP noted that this had happened despite the fact that the school had performed 'extremely well' in its inspection.
When we considered reform, we examined particularly critically the period of notice that a school can be given. In the past, some schools have known that they are to be inspected two terms ahead of the inspection. We believe that such notice had a distorting impact on the school and its work. We note that, following consultation, Ofsted is considering giving notice of between six and 10 weeks, but the Committee feels that four weeks would be more appropriate.
We recognise the argument that if a longer period of notice is given, much good work can be done within the school as it prepares for the inspection, and that the period of notice, rather than the inspection, may be what has a good impact on the school. However, we believe that now that there is a history of inspections, and schools are used to them, four weeks' notice is about right. That may reassure parents that a school stands more chance of being inspected as it is on a normal day.
We believe also that there is a role for snap inspections, not as an alternative to ordinary inspections, but a complementary process. Snap inspections would be carried out not by the mainstream Ofsted teams, but by Her Majesty's inspectors or local education authorities.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Do the hon. Gentleman and his Committee view snap inspections as one way to tackle the problem of over-preparation, which is referred to in a different part of the report, in that schools get keyed up about an inspection because they know that it is coming, but if the inspection is done on a spot basis, that problem does not arise?

Mr. Wicks: That could be one use for snap inspections. If, for example, the Secretary of State wanted a snap look at a particular subject or issue, such inspections could be used. We also had in mind the concern of parents with children at a particular school or in a particular area about problems such as school bullying. They might be worried that the school's regime was allowing pupils to get away with bullying. There is no point in inspectors telling the bullies and the teachers, "We shall be coming in eight weeks." They should turn up on a Monday morning and have a look. There is, therefore, a role for the snap inspection.
Alongside our proposal for a period of notice of only four weeks, we made recommendations to end the paper chase. At the moment, many schools over-prepare documentation for the inspection. That is only human, and one can understand that. We were struck, however, by one example of a school that had prepared so much documentation that it filled six large boxes and the registered inspector had to hire a man with a small van to cart it away. We never found out where he carted it off to, but we hope that it was recycled. We therefore recommend that Ofsted or the Department draw up a good practice guide—that will hopefully be a short document—to enable schools to end this devastation of our forests.
We believe that there should be a greater sense of ownership by schools of the inspection process. We want schools to view inspection as a valuable mechanism, not an external threat. We therefore suggested that it would be helpful if a school governing body were able to have an observer—not a member—on the Ofsted team that is inspecting the school.
I stress again that the evidence demonstrates that, in the great majority of cases, inspections are conducted in a fit and proper manner; and the inspectors are, in the main, courteous and professional in their dealings with pupils, staff, parents and governors. However, there are exceptions. We hear, for example, of inspection teams sometimes claiming to have inspected classes where there is evidence that they did not enter those classes. Ofsted should therefore continue its efforts to deal with poor inspection practice.
There is an issue to do with whether the inspection should be a clinical audit or whether it should develop into advice for schools. In considering that issue, we certainly welcomed the move towards greater feedback. In the school that I observed being inspected, I was impressed by the way in which inspectors would, whenever possible, give feedback to the teachers immediately after the lesson. We also observed feedback sessions with heads of department. All that is helpful, and we would encourage it. We want a process of professional dialogue, not clinical audit, to develop in Ofsted. Things are moving in the right direction.
Some argue that self-evaluation could replace external inspection. The Committee does not agree. There is an important role for self-evaluation, but it should be complementary to external inspection. We therefore recommend that Ofsted should include an assessment of self-evaluation within schools. That would be helpful.
We make recommendations about the membership of Ofsted teams. We heard a criticism that, too often, Ofsted teams are drawn from older members of the profession. That criticism can be exaggerated, but we certainly want to ensure that members of the Ofsted team have direct, current experience of teaching. We therefore recommend that more serving teachers and head teachers should be members of Ofsted teams. We would argue that if younger members of a team, who were teaching the literacy hour the week before the inspection, helped out for a few weeks a year as part of their professional development, they might be in a better position to judge the literacy hour during the school inspection. There are other arguments to support that recommendation.
We are also interested in the role of the lay inspector. Every team has a non-teaching professional, and we thought that that was a useful development. We saw that policy in operation. However, we think that it would be a good idea if more of the lay inspectors were young parents with school-age children. There are many ways to judge a school, but if the team contained a mother or father who was asking the simple question, "Is this school good enough for my child?", that would bring some reality into the inspection system from the parental point of view.
We considered the role of the Ofsted complaints adjudicator, which is clearly important. Currently, the complaints adjudicator is appointed by Ofsted. We do not believe that this is right; the appointment should be made elsewhere, either by the Secretary of State within the Department or by a board of commissioners for Ofsted—a recommendation to which I shall turn in a moment.
We also considered the accountability of Ofsted, which is important to the house. Ofsted is a non-ministerial Department, headed by Her Majesty's chief inspector. It is appointed by the Crown, and therefore has unique status in the education world. There are other non-ministerial Departments, but no clear analogies among them on reporting and accountability. We therefore conclude that
accountability mechanisms for Ofsted are not sufficiently robust".
We recognise that the independence of Ofsted is crucial, but we do not think that that precludes effective and transparent accountability. We therefore recommend that there should be, among other things, a regular House of Commons debate on Her Majesty's chief inspector's annual report. In assessing education standards, that could be an important occasion for the house.
We recommend to ourselves as a Select Committee that we should hold annual meetings with the chief inspector on both his annual report and, more generally, the work of Ofsted. We also suggest that, before the appointment or reappointment of the chief inspector is confirmed, the Select Committee should receive evidence from the nominee and report to Parliament. A debate on the Committee's report could then follow. We also discuss the need for a board of commissioners for Ofsted. We looked at the pros and cons of such a board, and conclude that a case for it should be considered very carefully.
There was a sense in which we were reluctant to investigate the role of Her Majesty's chief inspector and his style because we were interested in policy and practice rather than personality, but to undertake work into Ofsted without saying something about Mr. Chris Woodhead would be rather like discussing the Victorian era without mentioning good Queen Victoria.
As the report states,
The purpose of our inquiry has been to consider the work of Ofsted itself: the principle and practice of inspection. Based on the evidence we received, however, we realised that any such study would be difficult to divorce from the style adopted by Mr. Chris Woodhead".
Several witnesses commented on it. We heard from critics of the chief inspector, although some witnesses took a much more supportive view of his style.
It has not been possible for us to make a judgment about the successes or failures of Mr. Woodhead's style, although we note that when he came before us he defended it vigorously. He said:
It is very necessary … for messages that emerge from inspections to be communicated with absolute clarity to everybody who is interested in education. That, in a nutshell, is what I have tried to do. The issue of polemic; the issue of being excessively confrontational, I think is very much a matter of subjective judgment. I can only say to you that I think I have tried to speak plainly and, on occasion, bluntly and, on occasion, my attempts to do that have obviously provoked a pretty strong reaction".
We found it difficult, as a Committee, to make a judgment on whether such a style was necessary, although we note that many are critical of it.
We were concerned about the way Ofsted's work sometimes tended to focus on the negative. The day before we heard from the chief inspector, the annual report was published. The launch of the report was accompanied by a media focus on 15,000 failing teachers. We cross-examined Mr. Woodhead about that, and he told us that he knew no reason for such focus, given that the report was generally rather upbeat and optimistic. He

subsequently wrote to us—I think that it was the next day—to point out that, at the press conference to launch his annual report, Ofsted officials responded helpfully to "persistent requests" to provide the number of weak teachers.
We are concerned not so much with looking back at the role of the chief inspector and his style but with pointing the way forward. Ofsted has been in existence for some time; we have a good deal of experience. We therefore feel that several principles should guide the chief inspector's work in future. First, the report states:
the role of the Chief Inspector should include encouraging the formation of a consensus about the importance of Ofsted's work across a wide field.
Second. we support the view that HM Chief Inspector should, where appropriate, speak out on education issues.
That obviously helps to stimulate a wider public debate. The major interests must be those of children and their parents, although, as the report says,
we feel strongly that such public expression of views should be based firmly on clear and scientific evidence emerging from inspections undertaken by Ofsted's inspectors and other reputable sources. There is a considerable danger that if this principle is not adhered to, the Chief Inspector will be seen simply as a pundit or polemicist".
Thirdly, the report concludes:
in carrying out his or her role the Chief Inspector should be concerned to improve morale and promote confidence in the teaching profession. Hence the importance of fulfilling the role of Chief Inspector in a way that promotes wide acceptance of Ofsted's role and positive impact. We feel strongly that low morale among teachers inhibits the drive to raise standards".
having—I hope—faithfully reported the Committee's conclusions, I must add that all of us in the House recognise the vital importance of education and the need to improve standards. The Committee recommends, as I suspect most of us present would, that external inspection of schools is vital. That should not be controversial. However, there is a strong case for reform, and our report presents arguments for it. We look forward in due course to the Government's full response to our report.
In practice, inspections are usually professional and well regarded. The great majority of our teachers undertake their work, often in very arduous circumstances, in the most professional way. Alongside such day-to-day work, however, there has been an over-excited public debate about Ofsted's role. Such over-excitement damages parents and children. We must pull down the Berlin wall that sometimes seems to separate Ofsted and teachers' representatives. That is the challenge for both the chief inspector and professional organisations.

Mr. Phil Willis: I echo the comments of many hon. Members who have praised the quality of the Select Committee's report on Ofsted. Although the area is contentious, such a unanimous report speaks volumes for the gifted leadership of its co-Chairman, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks).
The report makes more than 65 recommendations, the vast majority of which have been welcomed by teacher unions, governor and parent associations, the Local Government Association and most hon. Members. It is a positive and balanced report, seeking to find common


ground between often differing views. It is important that it be acted on. Hopefully, in replying to the debate, the Minister will describe how the Department for Education and Employment intends to deal with each of the recommendations.
The Minister will be aware that the Liberal Democrats supported the Labour party in opposition in calling for a full governmental review of Ofsted. We had hoped that, as the Government, they would fulfil that pledge. The Select Committee inquiry may be seen by some as second best, but that would be extremely unfair. None the less, we would of course have liked more details and more debate on some areas.
The jury is still out on the appropriateness of the framework for inspecting special schools, especially those that deal with children who have severe learning and behavioural difficulties. Detailed research on the impact of mobility on school performance is necessary in order to come up with conclusions. More particularly, the pre-inspection context and school indicator—PICSI—data on which the background to school inspections in based clearly requires far greater attention. In work that is going on in Leeds at the moment, Benefits Agency data are being used as the basis for looking at a school's profile—instead of the pre-inspection context and school indicators, which are currently used.
Despite these criticisms, I believe that we should see the report as a starting point in the continuous public review and scrutiny of the Ofsted process. In particular, the Government should take heed of the uncertainty that surrounds the accountability of Ofsted to Parliament. The conclusion of the Select Committee at paragraph 196—
we conclude that the accountability mechanisms for Ofsted are not sufficiently robust. Nor do they demonstrate that Ofsted is fully accountable for its work"—
is extremely important. It goes right to the heart of much of the public and professional criticism of Ofsted and of the chief inspector of schools.
The recommendations of a regular debate in Parliament on the annual report and the scrutiny of the work of Ofsted by the Select Committee are both welcome. I remain to be convinced—although my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is entirely convinced—that a board of commissioners would significantly improve accountability, although I agree with the Committee that the Government should keep an open mind on that issue. No doubt if my hon. Friend catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will lucidly explain why he believes that a board of commissioners is needed.
The introduction of a quinquennial review is perhaps the most important recommendation. The review would not only enhance public accountability but ensure that Ofsted remained a dynamic organisation, responsive to an ever changing educational world. On 17 February, in evidence to the Select Committee, the Minister said no to a quinquennial review. We trust that she may have reconsidered that position and may change her mind when she responds.
Such a review would, too, help to address the issue of the accountability of the chief inspector of schools, which I suspect for many is the key issue at the heart of the accountability debate. The appointment of the chief inspector and, more specifically, any re-appointment,

should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and review, and the Minister will be failing to catch the mood of the report—and of the profession—if she does not respond positively.
In our view, it would have been wrong for any chief inspector, let alone the present controversial incumbent, to be reappointed to his post without being subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Ofsted's work has changed considerably since 1992. The chief inspector now reports on the inspection of initial training and local education authorities. Yet his suitability for the enhanced role and his massive increase in salary were never publicly evaluated. If public inspection and review is good enough for our teachers, it should be good enough for the chief inspector.
Try as we may, it is difficult to talk about Ofsted without discussing the role of Chris Woodhead. They go together like strawberries and cream—or some might say sour cream.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bath and I have been among the strongest critics of Mr. Woodhead's style of leadership. We do not accept that his confrontational style was either necessary or desirable. Much of the demonisation of Ofsted has arisen from his public utterances, and the style of the early inspections took their lead from what he said in public.
The Select Committee report is masterly in its criticism. It condemns Mr. Woodhead's penchant for self-publicity and his use of intemperate language to make unsubstantiated criticisms of the teaching profession. The message to him from the Select Committee is clear: he has a duty to promote debate on education issues, but the debate should arise from evidence-based conclusions, not personal prejudice. In short, his style must change.
I am one of the very few Members present who, as a serving head teacher, experienced an Ofsted inspection before entering the House.

Mr. Damian Green: Did the hon. Gentleman fail it?

Mr. Willis: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I did not. I thank him, however, for his concern.
In view of my previous comments, the House may be surprised to hear that, for me, the experience of the inspection was very positive. It was very positive for many of my colleagues who, sometimes for the first time, had the quality of their work independently recognised. It was very positive for the governors, who all too often spent their time dealing with the problems caused by social, economic and educational exclusion. It was very positive for our youngsters, who genuinely enjoyed meeting these strange, oft-talked-about beings called inspectors—especially the two youngsters who persuaded one of the inspectors that they had lost their dinner money on Monday and then again on Tuesday.
The inspection was a rewarding experience for the inspectors, one of whom I met last night at the teaching awards ceremony. I should add that one of them nearly benefited from the free can of Coke that he was offered to give his form teacher a good mark but, to his eternal credit, turned it down.
The Ofsted inspection of John Smeaton community high school was stressful, but it was a success because of the quality of the registered inspector—an outstanding


man called Champak Chauhan. The way in which he prepared for the inspection with the school, and the way he dealt with the school community during the visit, were both thoroughly professional. His team was experienced and thus had the confidence of the staff. The inspection balanced audit with advice; it left the school community feeling proud of its achievements and aware of its failings but, above all, with a clear direction in which to move. That should be the experience of every single school community—but we know that it is not.
Liberal Democrats have always supported a strong, vigorous and independent inspection system for our schools. However, we believe that Ofsted inspections should be part of a wider process, and that audit by itself will not raise standards. The two elements of external inspection and continuous internal review, although distinct, must be linked. Ofsted should be charged with inspecting a school's internal review process, which should be rigorous and focused. By placing an emphasis on continuous review, as complementary to formal inspection, we could ensure that quality assurance comes not once every six years, but in every single year of a school's life.
No one seriously suggests that Ofsted should be responsible for supplying support to schools, but it is in a unique position in having observed a wealth of outstanding practice in our schools, and it should make that experience available. We would like the Government to consider how the good practice assembled by Ofsted could be disseminated to schools.
Of course, although we seek an enhanced role for Ofsted, schools must be confident that they are being inspected by competent inspectors with relevant current experience. The Select Committee was not able to form a conclusion on that matter, but we strongly believe that the cause of quality is not served by the present contracting system and the status of registered inspectors. We believe that, as costs are driven down, quality will fall further. A profession for which the Government are currently trying to produce a new career structure, in order to attract the brightest and the best, is entitled to an inspection system that is not based on a part-time force of casual workers—a "Dad's Army" of retired teachers and inspectors.
As the Committee Chairman said, we must have more serving teachers and head teachers on inspection teams, but to do so we must provide an appropriate pay scale that reflects the serious job of work that needs to be done. That should not be subject to the whims of the market.
The registered inspector is crucial to the inspection process. We believe that the inspectors should be HMIs—Her Majesty's inspectors—and should have permanent salaried status. We cannot accept that such a crucial role should be subject to the vagaries of who wins the contract.
Last night, the Minister and I attended, with others, a celebration of excellence in our schools at the national teaching awards celebration. It was probably the first time in my lifetime—especially my professional lifetime—that such a celebration has taken place on such a scale. It was certainly the first time that prime-time television had presented such an overwhelmingly positive picture of teachers to the nation.
Chris Woodhead may have believed that by saying that there were 15,000 failing teachers he would improve standards in our schools. Last night, by celebrating the work of 450,000 teachers, the teaching awards trust and the BBC did exactly that.

helen Jones: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate. Like the Select Committee, I believe that a rigorous and independent inspection system is vital if we are to improve our children's education. However, I believe that any system of education inspection must be judged by how well it helps us to do that. For an inspection system to achieve that goal, it must do several things. It must be fair and consistent, provide solid evidence of what is happening in our schools and give feedback to teachers and parents. It must celebrate and spread good practice as well as pointing out failings. In other words, it must tell us clearly what works. We and the Select Committee have done an excellent job in these regards, but we must decide also what works in Ofsted, and what does not.
There have been some successes. The inspection system now focuses clearly on the process of teaching and learning in the classroom and on highlighting weaknesses in schools instead of focusing on structures. That is exactly how it should be. The Ofsted framework generally has been widely praised. It is true, as the Chairman of the Select Committee has said—my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks)—that most schools have found their inspectors to be professional and courteous, despite there being some problems with certain teams. Nevertheless, we must face the fact—I find this in schools in my constituency every week—that the mention of Ofsted still instils fear and loathing in classrooms.
The Select Committee has drawn attention to the negative effect that the inspection process can have. Worryingly, the evidence given to it shows a wide disparity between head teachers' appreciation of the inspection process and the views of classroom teachers. The inspection process will never be easy for anyone. No profession and no individual likes being inspected.
If we are to enhance the Ofsted process and ensure that it has credibility, we must tackle three issues. First, we must ensure that the inspection system is not so bureaucratic that it interferes with good teaching in the classroom. Secondly, we must ensure that parents and teachers have confidence in the quality and consistency of the inspection process. Thirdly, we must, regrettably, consider the role and profile adopted by the chief inspector.
I was pleased that, in his letter reappointing the chief inspector, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State called for a more flexible inspection style. I welcome also the move to a six-yearly cycle of inspections. It seems self-evident that schools that are failing or are not delivering improvements need more attention from inspectors than those that are succeeding, as, too, do those schools that on paper might be achieving good results, but in practice are coasting and not allowing their pupils to reach their full potential. The Government call that intervention in inverse proportion to success. Being a simple soul, I prefer to say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
As well as taking that approach, we must reduce the notice of inspections still further. I welcome the fact that it has now been reduced to between 10 and six weeks. I welcome also the chief inspector's assurance to the Select Committee that he did not need van-loads of paperwork. I agree with the Select Committee on reducing the notice still further, but I would like to see many more unannounced inspections. That would reduce the


bureaucratic burden on teachers and provide us with a much more effective picture of what is happening in schools. I do not wish to overstate the case, but it is not unknown for schools to rehearse for inspection, and to do so does not give anyone a true picture of what is going on.
However, that will not be enough. Schools must have confidence in the consistency and quality of inspections. I agree that we need far more inspectors with recent experience of the classroom. I think that the average age of inspection teams is about 52. I do not wish to denigrate the members of those teams, but it is clear that most of them, like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), the Government Whip, cannot have recent classroom experience. It is essential that serving teachers and head teachers are members of the inspection teams because of their experience and to increase the confidence of the profession in the inspection process.
When inspectors are inspecting schools, they should spend far more time in the classroom than they do now. Thirty or 40 minutes is not enough to grade a teacher. If that happened in any other profession there would be an outcry.
We need to examine carefully the quality assurance procedures that are adopted by Ofsted to ensure consistency between different inspection teams. Ofsted's research into the reliability and validity of its process was heavily criticised by one witness on the ground that it covered only volunteers who knew that they were being observed. I agree that that is not a particularly good method of research.
I was disturbed by the evidence of some chief education officers that there was as much as a 15 per cent. difference between how their inspectors saw schools and how Ofsted inspectors saw them. That in itself must give us cause for thought and make us question the figures. Knowing the chief inspector's views on education research, I am reluctant to recommend more. However, it is clear that some serious research is needed on how the inspection process functions. Ofsted's research should inform the comments that the chief inspector makes about schools. He has adopted a high public profile, unlike his colleague in Wales. Whether that improves children's education is debatable. It is right that any chief inspector should be able to comment on education issues and advise Ministers, but those comments and that advice must be based on sound evidence that has been gathered by inspection teams. They must not be personal prejudices and polemics, and they must highlight good practice.
I was pleased that my right hon. Friend's letter of appointment called for good practice to be highlighted. We do not improve teacher morale by constant denigration. Similarly, we do not attract good graduates into the profession by adopting that approach. It may be a truism, but we cannot have good schools without good teachers. The chief inspector and everyone else should bear that in mind.
I hope that we shall have no more incidents like the chief inspector's comment that 15,000 teachers should be removed, which was based solely on lesson observations in small primary schools. I have said previously that that sort of research would not pass muster with the supervisor of a first-year post-graduate. It is not good enough. The

hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) might remember that in May 1996 the chief inspector, having made comments about achievements in standard assessment tests, gave evidence to the then Education and Employment Select Committee which seemed to indicate that he did not understand either a normal distribution curve or the concept of an average. I hope that we shall not have another incident such as that. More progress in English and maths is clearly to be expected.

Mr. Willis: Mr. Woodhead was an English teacher.

Helen Jones: The Chief Inspector was an English teacher and so was I, but at least I understand what an average is.
I want to see the chief inspector and Ofsted move forward and develop much more consensus about the work of the inspection service. I want to see him presiding over an inspection system which takes account of the context in which schools work, including factors such as pupil mobility and social deprivation. Those factors are not an excuse for failure, but we need to find the schools that have overcome such problems, in order that other schools can learn to overcome them as well. I hope that the chief inspector will develop much more of a professional dialogue with teachers, so that we can move forward together and see them as partners in raising standards in our schools, not as the enemy.
This is not, after all, a war. We are all on the same side—the side of raising standards. I hope that we move forward to a more consensual, collegiate approach that will benefit parents and teachers. Most of all, it will help to raise standards in our schools which, as the Select Committee rightly points out, is what our children deserve.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My attitude to the estimates is somewhat ambivalent. I am a great admirer of the inspectorate, by which I mean a great admirer of the chief inspector himself and of the system that has been put in place—which, incidentally, I regard as one of the great achievements of the education policies of the former Administration.
However, I am deeply concerned about the funding of former grant-maintained schools in Lincolnshire. Looking at the sum involved—£59.5 million—I am conscious that a small fraction of that would enable the Government to address the problems currently experienced by the former grant-maintained schools in the county that I represent.
On balance, my conclusion is that it is important that we approve the estimates so that the inspectorate can thoroughly examine the funding and the difficulties of former grant-maintained schools generally, and in particular in Lincolnshire.
To enable the inspectorate to perform the task that I hope it will perform as a result of the money that I anticipate the House will vote on the estimates, it may be helpful if I say a few brief words about the difficulties of the former grant-maintained schools in Lincolnshire, which are suffering underfunding as a direct consequence of the Government's policy.
Before I do that, there is a constitutional point worth making. The matter is relevant exclusively to England. Were there to be a vote on the matter—I do not suggest


that there will be a vote—I feel fairly certain that Government Whips would call on their colleagues from Scottish constituencies to vote. That would be a bizarre proposition.
I see no reason why Scottish representatives in the House should vote on funds that are relevant exclusively to English education. It is worth identifying this issue as one of many that will arise, on which we hope that representatives of Scottish constituencies will disqualify themselves from participating in votes. That, I understand, is the intention of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), whose courage is much to be commended in this regard.
I am anxious to stay fully in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I emphasise that I support the vote in favour of the Ofsted grant of £59.5 million, in the hope that part of the money will be used to look into the problems of the former grant-maintained schools in Lincolnshire. To enable the inspectorate to discharge the functions that I hope it will perform as a result of the decision of the house, I shall outline the difficulties in Lincolnshire.
The problem is that former grant-maintained schools were funded in three ways.

Valerie Davey: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg: Yes, of course.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Before the hon. Lady intervenes, may I say that the report is about the work of Ofsted? I would not want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to dwell on the position of former grant-maintained schools in Lincolnshire. That is not relevant to the report before us.

Mr. Hogg: May I try to address the anxiety which I anticipated would be in your mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker? My purpose, obviously, is to highlight the problems of the former grant-maintained schools in Lincolnshire, because they are suffering from a deficit that is the direct and intended consequence of Government policy. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All Members of Parliament have problems relating to their constituencies and their communities. Hon. Members know as well as I do that there are many avenues through which to highlight those problems, such as Adjournment debates and perhaps other education debates. However, in this debate the right hon. and learned Gentleman must stick to the terms of the report.

Mr. Hogg: I accept the rebuke, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying briefly to highlight the point, but to stay in order. You have kindly reminded us that there are many ways in which the point can be highlighted. May I suggest to you that this may be one such, because it is part of the function of the inspectorate to look into schools? I suggest to the house, through you, that there is a particular problem with former grant-maintained schools, which the inspectorate ought to address.
The estimates give to the inspectorate £59.5 million, so it should have ample opportunity to look into those specific problems. To enable the inspectorate more fully

and effectively to confront that task, I suggest that it would be in order for me briefly to identify the problem. I think that that is in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not dwell on the matter. If he wants to mention in passing the problems that might arise and which the inspectorate should examine, that is fine, but I am trying to say as bluntly as I can that he should not make a meal of it.

Mr. Hogg: You have put your ruling graciously, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That being so, I shall respond in precisely the way that you suggest—not by making a meal of it, but in broad terms. As you see, I have put aside my notes.
In broad terms, the problem confronting all grant-maintained schools is that in providing funding in the current year, the Government have ensured that the funding of former grant-maintained schools is being frozen at the cash level in 1998–99. That is resulted in Lincolnshire and no doubt in many other places—

Mr. Bob Blizzard: What about Suffolk?

Mr. Hogg: The same may well be true of Suffolk. The Government's policy has resulted in redundancies—

Valerie Davey: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made his point. He has put the matter on record. He should leave it at that and concentrate on the report before us.

Mr. Hogg: You have put the ruling very clearly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Therefore I shall not go on challenging it. I have identified a serious problem with regard to former grant-maintained schools. The problem may well occur in Suffolk; it certainly occurs in Lincolnshire.
I hope that the estimates will enable the inspectorate to focus on the former grant-maintained schools, especially in Lincolnshire, and to ask itself whether Government policy is having a seriously damaging effect on the quality of education in those schools. That is my contention and I hope that, following the approval of the estimates, the inspectorate will tackle the task that I have outlined.

Miss Melanie Johnson: I am minded to follow the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) by referring to "Inspection '98: the Supplement to the Inspection handbooks Containing New Requirements and Guidance". The annexe, which is headed "Seriously Misleading Reports", states:
Procedures are established for dealing with reports which are judged to be seriously misleading".
I introduce that reference to the debate so that hon. Members can reflect on it in the present context.
I have many interests to declare. I am still accredited to work as an Ofsted team inspector, which is my former occupation, and I declare that interest in case hon.


Members believe it to be significant to the debate. I have further interests: my three children are in the schools system and my constituency is full of children. All of us in the Chamber have tremendous interest in that aspect of our provision.
I shall make a number of comments on the report, and I begin with a few on the efficiency of the system. I was a member of a county curriculum committee some years ago, when Her Majesty's inspectorate was responsible for reporting on schools. It is worth recalling that its reports often arrived with county councils and local education authorities as many as 12 months after the inspection. Although we are considering extending by a week or so the time that the inspector has to complete the report, one of the triumphs of the present system is they are completed to a tight schedule. As a result, there is a tremendously fast turnaround for schools.
I believe, as the report suggests, that it is better for schools to have less notice that the inspectors are going in. I have been on the opposite end of the process from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis)—he was on the receiving end—and I agree with the report's comments about the anticipatory dread experienced by many schools as a result of the long lead-in times. It is better that they have less time to worry about the imminent visit of the inspectors, not least because less paperwork will be produced in some cases.
The report comments wisely that often too much paperwork is produced for inspectors. I remember inspecting a school at which 42 box files of paper were presented to us; the experience was similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), of the man with the van who had to collect the paperwork. Those masses of paper are often the result of nothing but panic in the school management team about the arrival of Ofsted. That does not help the team, the school, the staff or the system. I commend the suggestion that we give schools as little notice as is practicable for all sides.
On the question of the quality of the teams, there is always a danger with the present system—indeed, with any system—that the bad or the cynical will paint a picture of the system for everybody else. There has been too much of that in the present circumstances. Section 3.1 of the inspection framework for schools requires that the inspection reflects the nature of the school, which is important. It is important to remember that a report is a snapshot of a school during the inspection and inspectors in good teams always take into account the nature of the children, the school's circumstances and its recent history.
Although I have not checked this out recently, when I last spoke to colleagues I gathered that team members are no longer named on bids for Ofsted contracts. I am a little concerned about that. At one time, it was standard for Ofsted to require the team to be named on the bid for a school. In the light of the Select Committee's remark that it would be highly desirable to achieve a better match between experience and the school and to ensure that the quality of the team is good, it would be excellent if team members could be put forward as part of the contracting process in more cases, or at least in sensitive ones. The schools are not known by the contractors, which makes the process of contracting blind on both sides, and, although that situation will end in August, that does not help in respect of quality.
As different parties remarked in evidence to the Select Committee, larger contractors are not necessarily synonymous with higher quality. A message was left on my home answering machine only a few weeks ago by someone I had never heard of informing me that an inspection was taking place near my home and asking whether I would like to do it. I am obviously still on the list of inspectors and that person did not know that I was otherwise engaged in other places. Some of the smaller teams work closely together, and their members are used to doing that, so the problem of car park syndrome—teams were thought to have met in the car park—can be avoided. That was not my experience of working, and I played a part in inspecting about 50 schools in the four years before I was elected to the house.
Paragraph 69 discusses pre-Ofsted inspection and consultancies. It is worth remarking in this context that that highlights the need for the Government's proposals on appraisal and re-emphasises the importance of head teachers and leadership in schools. As we all know from our experience, a surprisingly large number of schools are going for pre-Ofsted consultancies. Making sure that the school is performing as it should be in the normal course of events, monitoring its work, reviewing its activities and appraising the performance of the staff and of the school as an organisation should be part of the normal work of managing the school and a normal activity for head teachers, heads of department and other senior managers in the school.
Quality depends in large part on the quality of the registered inspector. In this context, it is relevant to consider some of the financial issues on which the Select Committee took evidence. In my experience, a large number of such people have retired early. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (helen Jones) commented on age, to the discomfort of our Whip, but I should point out that some such people have retired only recently and may be younger than some of those still working in the service. A tranche of people retired early at about the time at which Ofsted was established and they are probably reaching the age at which they will retire from the system once and for all. As a result, a large number of people will leave the system in the not-too-distant future. Most inspectors work part-time. The occupation is not full-time and the financial aspects of the system require them to be dedicated to other things. People cannot work part-time—in part, that was my situation—or they have to have a pension or money coming in from elsewhere.
Although the quality of the registered inspector is important, there is a lot to be said about the quality of team members. As a number of hon. Members have commented, it would be highly desirable for serving heads, deputies and, possibly, even teachers to be on inspection teams, although that would have resource implications. For example, I served on a number of inspection teams with the head teacher of a special school. He was an invaluable member of those teams, but, because of the nature of the inspection process, he had to leave his own school for a week during the inspection and for a period either side of it. Schools have to be able to cope with such absence, which ought to be the case, and cover arrangements would have to be made. Those who currently serve in our schools are unable to be greatly involved in inspections, and they would have to be trained, but trying to increase participation in such positions would be worth while.
I have already mentioned the need to match the team to the school and we could be doing more on that. I do not think that shadowing is viable because it puts people in a difficult position. I have been a school governor for many years and, if I were invited to shadow the members of an inspection team, things would be difficult for them and difficult for me.
Paragraph 126 of the report showed that there was a reassuringly high correlation in the judgments made by inspectors on the same lesson. People have commented about the nature of inspectors' judgments and the discrepancies between local education authorities' inspections and the inspection reports that have been issued. Sometimes, the reports by Ofsted inspectors have been better than those by LEA inspectors, and sometimes the converse. It is important to recognise, however, that judgment is not a science but an art. People who are in a position to judge the performance of others bring only their own ability to look at them in that context and to make a human decision about how well they are doing. It will never be an exact science.
It is important to consider the issue of special schools. Inspecting a special school is very different from inspecting a primary or secondary school. Too much is made of whether special schools should be inspected, but such inspections are almost inevitable. The framework for them is now different: for the first two years, there was a common framework, but that was subsequently split into three separate sections—secondary, primary and special. Thus, to some degree, the framework has already been tailored and, more recently, moves have been made to ensure that it is more tailored. The advice given to inspectors reflects that.
Inspections place enormous pressure on small primary schools where it is difficult for the inspection team not to be a heavyweight presence. While it is there, it probably has to inspect most of the classes most of the time, whereas in a large secondary school many teachers are often not seen by team members. It is therefore important to look at how inspections work, particularly with small primary schools.
Two of the points made in the report are about the inspection of only parts of lessons. That occurs for a variety of practical reasons, not least because timetabling sometimes results in very long lessons. Another reason is that inspectors of particular subjects must see a mix of the year group, the teachers and the subjects within a particular department, such as modern languages, where more than one subject is taught. It is important to be aware that the only constraint on inspectors staying longer in a lesson is that of resources—the number of hours allocated to a team to cover a school inspection. Paragraph 92 on feedback also has resource implications as it relates to inspectors going straight into lessons. If one is following up in one lesson, one obviously cannot be there at the start of the next. Those two points need to be brought together.
Paragraph 90 deals with the grading of lessons and points out that it is not teachers who are being graded. It is important to realise that, in the original system, Ofsted inspectors graded not teachers but lessons. I am slightly uncomfortable about how, subsequently, teachers became the subject of grading. That was not necessarily constructive and did not help to reinforce the fact that the school and the teaching, rather than individual members of staff, were being inspected.
On accountability, I believe that the annual report that we are debating would be a constructive move. It would allow more public discussion of the report itself and would highlight the information in the report, which sometimes receives scant and, as others have said, fairly skewed coverage for a variety of reasons. We must be careful about how the information is presented. Last week's report on improvements in primary standards as a result of the national literacy and numeracy hours shows that we can either present the results nicely and say that four out of five lessons were satisfactory or better, or we can say that only one in five lessons was unsatisfactory. It is question of presentation, and we need to get that right.
Ofsted has done much that is good. Hon. Members might expect me to say that, but neither the local education authority inspectorates nor hMI ever had the same collection of evidence from across the entire education system as Ofsted now has. Last week's primary report is based on 1.25 million lessons, which is a phenomenal evidence base. Although it is better to target resources as we propose, because we have completed a full cycle in all cases, the collection of a large amount of evidence in the first place shows the vital role that Ofsted has played.
The value of the inspection framework has also been commented on. Parents are reassured to have their suspicions confirmed, whether about the good points or the weaknesses of a particular school.
I dare to say that the report is good, but as an inspector I must resist the temptation to grade it. Ofsted is very good, especially given the recent adaptation. I am sure that this report goes some way to improving it further, as it should.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute briefly to this important debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), who obviously speaks with a great deal of practical experience of Ofsted inspections. I also compliment the Select Committee and its Chairman, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks); they have done a workmanlike job in producing this report.
It is worth just noting that Ofsted was set up in 1992 and was very much a Conservative policy. I am delighted that, these days, there is a spirit of cross-party co-operation, both on the Committee and in the Chamber, about the importance of Ofsted. That view has not always characterised the attitude of the leaders of some teaching unions. All too often, the reservations, which have not abated in the intervening years, have been funnelled into personalised criticism of the chief inspector. With some of them, it is still a coded attack on the concept of inspections altogether.
As has already been mentioned by at least one other hon. Member this evening, Ofsted has now completed its first full cycle of inspections, having inspected all of the country's 24,000 schools over a four-year period. Under the old system, secondary schools were inspected on average once every 50 years and primary schools once every 200 years, which says something about the previous system.
What this is all about is helping the process of accountability in education. Ofsted has always had, and will continue to have, its critics, who do not want this


level of inspection and accountability in our education system, but the great weight of serious opinion, both in this House and in the teaching profession, is now firmly behind the concept of Ofsted. I very much welcome that.
The concept of inspection has reached a high pitch of interest. In my constituency—I am sure that Eastbourne is not atypical in this respect—the local papers cover Ofsted reports, with detailed coverage of the results and much picking over of the recommendations and findings. There is a vigorous rebuttal process by teachers and governors if the school feels that it has been treated unfairly. That is extremely valuable, because it brings the inspection process into sharp focus as it affects individual schools and communities.
Bishop Bell secondary school in my constituency has been turned round in the past couple of years by a new head teacher, Mr. Terry Boatwright. There is now a completely new attitude. I cannot help feeling that much of that is due to the inspection process and the prospect of an Ofsted inspection. At this time of year, or a little earlier, my mail bag used to fill up with letters from parents whose children had been allocated to that school. They said that they would rather die than have their child sent to that school. It was a massive problem, because it put enormous pressure on the other secondary schools in the area. As a result, Bishop Bell school had falling rolls, poor buildings—which it had to start off with—a poor reputation and was unable to attract the support that a successful school should have attracted. The writing was on the wall when permission was given to build a brand new school, Causeway school, which is now open. It is an attractive school, and is not far from Bishop Bell school.
One envisaged the new school attracting children away from Bishop Bell school and sucking its support. The moment had come when it was either to succeed or to fail. The governors took that on board, and a new head teacher was recruited. The school has been turned round, and parents now write to me because they cannot get their children into Bishop Bell school and ask me what I can do about it. That is a tribute to the school and the commitment and dedication of the head teacher, teachers, governors and parents. It fits neatly into the whole picture of inspection and of encouraging and driving up standards in schools, which was a centrepiece of education policy under the previous Conservative Government, and which, at least in their rhetoric, the present Government have also taken on board.
The inspection system gives real backing to dedicated and determined teachers and head teachers, and can make all the difference. A former Conservative colleague, Rhodes Boyson, who was very much loved in the House, was a well-known head teacher. He had strong views about the teaching profession, and he once memorably said that some teachers could teach a class of 50 in a bus shelter without any difficulties, whereas some teachers could have a riot on their hands with one dead chicken. We have all met both categories of teacher.
The Ofsted process enhances and underpins the concept of parental choice. Parents must be able to make an informed choice. There is a report in today's Evening Standard about the remarks of Mr. Justice Kay in a case

brought about the assisted places scheme in private schools. He severely criticised some of the undertakings that were given by the Prime Minister and Ministers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not talking about Ofsted, so he is straying from the subject of the debate.

Mr. Waterson: I am happy to take your guidance on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was talking about parental choice, which is vital to our education system. The Conservative Government did much to breathe life into that concept. They did more than just pay lip service to the principle of parental choice.
With regard to the before and after effects on schools of an Ofsted inspection, the word "dread" may be slightly strong, but when I visit a school in my constituency that is preparing for an Ofsted report there is an air of constructive tension about the place. In some schools, people go to unnecessary lengths. That was dealt with in the report, which was right to talk about the dangers of over-preparation for an inspection. That is one reason why there is considerable support in the report and across the Chamber for unannounced, snap inspections. There is considerable scope for that, because if schools have a long notice period before an inspection, there is a genuine danger of over-preparation.
The report rightly refers to optimal tension between the inspectors and the inspected. That is important, because although the normal business of a school should not be brought to a grinding halt by the prospect of a looming inspection, it would be wrong and pointless if there were not an air of apprehension and worry about the effect of the inspection on the school. It is a tribute to those doing the inspecting—especially given what the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield said—that in the great majority of instances they manage to tread the narrow line between being over-officious and over-zealous and missing things that are important in any such inspection.
I should like to say a brief word about special schools, because the report dwells on them. It says:
A rigorous and appropriate approach is needed to the inspection of special schools.
That is absolutely right, but in paragraph 19 reference is made to the fact that
the proportion of special schools judged to require special measures (that is, 'failed' their inspection) was far higher than the proportion of mainstream schools requiring special measures.
I can testify to that problem by using an example in my constituency. Eastbourne has an excellent special school called hazel Court, which has tremendously dedicated staff and has many children who suffer from a variety of severe disabilities. Not long ago, it was inspected by Ofsted, which made serious criticisms of the school. At the time, there was strong feeling in the school and in the wider community that it was being tested against a wrong set of criteria, and was being treated unfairly. I am sure that that was not the intention of those involved in the inspection, and that no one in that school or in any other special school would argue that they should be given an easier ride than any other educational institutions.
I endorse paragraph 23 of the report, which recommends that, whenever possible, the team inspecting a special school should
include members with relevant experience of special schools".


It looks to Ofsted
to monitor closely the composition of the teams that inspect special schools to determine the extent to which their experience reflects the particular challenges which special schools face.
I could not have put it better. There is real concern about how special schools are inspected. I am sure that this recommendation will be taken up by the inspectorate, if it has not already been pursued, and that it will remove the problem that I described in the special school in my constituency.
I have tried—I hope that I have succeeded—to give two specific examples of Ofsted inspections and their effect in my constituency. The report contains much good sense and many practical proposals. If I had enough time, I could dwell on many more such proposals, but I have tried to identify those that have particular resonance in my constituency. I again commend the Committee's work.

Valerie Davey: As a member of the Select Committee, I endorse its recommendations.
I want briefly to consider three underlying features of Ofsted's work: its contribution to the raising of standards in schools, the nature of the inspection process, and Ofsted's role in encouraging the wider learning perspective—a learning society.
Inspection—external, objective inspection—is overwhelmingly supported, but it does not in itself raise standards. Measuring does not increase length, and weighing does not increase weight. Traditionally, we have been guided by exam results, but there is much more to it than that. In every respect, we depend on teachers to raise standards.
I entirely accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) said about the assessment of schools' performance. Ofsted is assessing overall performance. That requires profiles and carefully established criteria, but assessing a whole school's performance is Ofsted's task. Having inspected schools, collected data, and assessed effectiveness and good practice, Ofsted has produced a virtual library of material to assist those who can affect standards more directly: Ministers, schools and colleges, teachers and governors.
Ofsted's process of monitoring and assessing schools is different from that of any other inspecting body. We are not looking at a single product; we are looking at a community—a complex community, including pupils, teachers, governors and parents. The very presence of inspectors is likely to change the dynamic—the effect of relationships—for good or for bad. There is a direct impact on the school community involved, and it is against that part of Ofsted's work that most criticism has been levelled.
A purely distant, judgmental role for Ofsted is not acceptable; the process must be developmental, while remaining objective. There must be a recognition of the impact of self-evaluation, which so many schools have now developed and which, in the long term, is essential. Teaching must involve high expectation, mutual respect and encouragement, which must be reflected in inspections. All education involves learning on the part of both teacher and student, and that too must include Ofsted.
Clearly, a wealth of information is gained, digested and used by Ofsted inspectors. However, inspectors must also genuinely recognise that they can still learn, and that they

make mistakes. I am still dismayed by one example. A registered inspector, having been forcefully and consistently criticised by schools for his own forceful style, was finally deregistered—only to be sent a personal letter by HMCI offering to "oil the wheels" for his future.
The latest response—the primary report, also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield—reflects well on those three aspects of inspection. The Times Educational Supplement features the beautiful headline, "Woodhead applauds improved primaries". At last, it is good news all round: good, because standards are rising, and because HMCI is genuinely congratulating teachers and heads. There is a "but", however. As this is an estimates debate, let me refer to a commentary on the report. I believe that it was mentioned earlier.
According to the commentary, new ground is being broken. The report suggests that there is a case for additional resources in schools in tougher areas, which face problems that others do not. It says that more trained teacher assistants should be employed, and that class sizes should be reduced. I am afraid that local education authorities have known that for many years; it is too costly for Ofsted to have only just reached the same conclusion. In addition, Mr. Woodhead insisted that he was not advocating extra Government funding: he was suggesting only that local authorities should take account of the different needs of the schools involved.
I was asked to be brief. Let me conclude by saying that, if Ofsted is to succeed in its many diverse roles, it must be respected and above reproach. Ofsted should not be feared, although I accept that it will not often be wholeheartedly welcomed. In all instances, there must be mutual respect, and a dialogue between professionals. I believe that, if that is to be achieved, Ofsted must enter the new millennium under new leadership, challenging our schools, teacher training centres and colleges at every level, and working in partnership to ensure excellence in both teaching and learning.

Mr. Damian Green: We have heard speeches both from members of the Committee and from at least one former professional, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson). I approach the subject rather tentatively, as an interested outsider.
I read the Committee's report with great interest. It struck me as a very thorough report, on a subject that, although I have always felt it should not be, is contentious. Although, in many respects, the interest aroused by Ofsted's work is commendable, I think it a shame that every aspect of its work has to be contentious—particularly its chief inspector. Many Conservative Members—and, no doubt, some Labour Members—feel that any report such as this should make the basic point that Ofsted and its chief inspector, Chris Woodhead, have been overwhelmingly a force for good in England's education since 1992. Any remarks that I make that cast doubt on some aspects of Ofsted's work should be seen in that context.
It is, of course, impossible to take a view on Ofsted without taking a view on Chris Woodhead; but before we deal with personalities, we should look at the facts of what he has achieved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) pointed out, the fact that


Ofsted has inspected all 24,000 schools over a period of four years contrasts starkly with the long gaps between inspections that used to occur. More important than the process, however, is the product, and the fact that visible improvements in schools are now taking place.
In 1996, 40 per cent. of teaching at key stages 1 and 2 was defined as good; the figure has now risen to 50 per cent. The number of 11-year-olds reaching the expected level in national curriculum tests in English and maths rose by 15 per cent. between 1994 and 1998. The incidence of teaching judged to be unsatisfactory or poor fell, over that four-year cycle, from one lesson in five to one in 14. Happily, the four-year cycle spans activity under both the present and the last Government. I can, therefore, resist the temptation to try to score partisan points, as, no doubt, can Labour Members.
The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield suggested that whether we should see the figures in terms of one lesson in five being unsatisfactory or in terms of four in five being satisfactory was merely an issue of presentation. I am not sure that I agree. Surely it would be wrong to try to gloss over the fact that 20 per cent. of lessons in English schools were unsatisfactory. One of Ofsted's strengths has been that it has not been afraid to point out where things are unsatisfactory.
I thank Ofsted for one of its first reports on local education authorities: the one on Kent, which was largely positive. I know that many people in Kent welcomed Ofsted's endorsement of the Kent system, which includes many grammar schools, which are under threat. In Kent, both parents of children at grammar schools and those of children at other schools would repeat the words of the hon. Member for Warrington, North (helen Jones)—"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"—and hope that the system that Ofsted has commended will be allowed to continue.
Chris Woodhead and his teams have not only brought about individual improvements, but contributed to a culture change. In some ways, there is a new conventional wisdom about education that was not there about 10 years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne has referred to the former Education Minister and Member for Brent, North, Rhodes Boyson, who would be particularly pleased about the culture change. In the 1970s, when he and others produced the education black papers, and said things that are now regarded as conventional wisdom about the way lessons should be taught in school and the importance of discipline and of structured lessons, it was regarded as way-out radicalism.
One of the unarguable improvements over the past 30 years is that those things have become the conventional wisdom in almost all areas—on both sides of the House and in most parts of education, although, I am sad to say, some of the more recalcitrant educationists in universities and a few in the teaching unions disagree. Indeed, that conventional wisdom is now shared even by Ministers. I am sure that the Minister will know that it is not what the Government seek to do, but the centralising way in which they seek to do it that Conservative Members object to.
Not only does Ofsted deserve credit for much of that change in culture, but Chris Woodhead deserves personal credit. Perhaps he did have to be as single-minded as he has always been to drive through those changes. Various

hon. Members have criticised his style. Indeed, there has been some legitimate murmuring, if you like, about the way that he has sometimes addressed the teaching profession.
I have heard about that matter from head teachers in both my constituency and beyond, whose views on education I respect hugely. They have seen times when Chris Woodhead has seemed not very attuned to sensitivities that he should have taken into account. Nevertheless, the overwhelming balance is on his side.
If Chris Woodhead has occasionally erred in being too forceful, that fault was possibly made inevitable by the forces of inertia that he had to confront in the educational establishment. Certainly, nothing that he has done, or none of his views, is any excuse for the organised attack on him early this year, in part from, I regret to say, the Government Back Benches. A disputed episode in his personal life more than 20 years ago was no excuse for the personal vilification that he went through. Those attacks were transparently politically and ideologically motivated.
I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of the debate to express her and the Government's continuing support for the chief inspector. I am sure that he was grateful—and I suspect that the House was—that, at the time, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment expressed that support.
Despite Ofsted's many achievements, there are always improvements to be made and the report identifies some of them. We have heard from many Members about the importance of reducing, or at times perhaps abolishing. the period of notice. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware of the tremendous tension that builds in schools that are waiting to be, as the jargon has it, ofsteded—that particularly unlovely new term that has been added to the English language; to ofsted, I suppose, is the verb.
Not only does that lead to an unrealistic assessment when the inspection finally takes place, but the amount of energy that is diverted into preparing for an Ofsted inspection seems, in some cases that I have seen, to damage palpably the quality of the teaching in that intervening period. Apart from that, some schools will go as far as rehearsing for an inspection, so they present an unrealistic picture of their real attainments when the inspectors come.
Therefore, from all points of view, it would be better if it became the norm that there was no long period between the announcement of an Ofsted inspection and its implementation. Indeed, Ofsted inspectors could sometimes just drop in to schools to see what is happening on a normal day. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that, in relation to the various measures, some schools do not need to be inspected as often as schools that may not have been doing so well.
The Minister and her colleagues are about to impose new burdens on Ofsted. Under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, it has already taken on the inspection of LEAs. Soon, it will inspect post-16 education. I hope that the Government will provide adequate resources.
Ofsted is one of education's success stories over the past few years. It would be a great shame if that were put in jeopardy by under-resourcing its new and extra


responsibilities. Ofsted is now too important to be stretched too thinly. It needs to do an important job; up to now, it has done that job very well. It would be bad not just for Ofsted, but for all those at school and in post-16 education if the new burdens that Ofsted has willingly taken on—perhaps not burdens; the new jobs that it has taken on—were not adequately resourced.
Perhaps that is an issue that the Minister will want to address more than any other not only in the debate, but in the months ahead. However, in general, like the Select Committee report, we would give Ofsted a clean bill of health, and give it and Chris Woodhead personally our thanks for the good work that they have done for English education since 1992.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: I feel privileged to be able to speak in the debate. I am a member of the Select Committee that produced the report, the first report that I worked on as a member of the Committee. I feel that we have made a substantial contribution.
It is important to touch on what we tried to do with the report. We were conscious of all the noises off. Therefore, the report was not intended to be a witch hunt either for or against the chief inspector. It was not intended to be a product of political correctness. It was intended to be thorough, considered, forensic and not personally judgmental. The aim was to recognise that both Ofsted and HMCI have to work for all the players in the schools sector—for teachers, parents and pupils. In that respect, everyone has a view. Everyone is a stakeholder.
I am glad that all hon. Members have recognised that inspection is not a touchy-feely exercise. However, nor is it the Spanish inquisition or, as Professor Mortimore characterised it in his comments to us, a Kafkaesque process. What we have to ask about inspection is—this is highly relevant in response to the Government's emphasis on raising standards and putting standards at the heart of everything—how it gets schools from A to B. Since 1992, what has Ofsted achieved in raising standards? Is Ofsted learning, and is it getting better in the inspection process?
The Select Committee report was, therefore, a structurally driven, not personality-driven inquiry. The report was meant to produce—I think that it has produced—recommendations that will produce results for the next 10 to 15 years. I should like to pay particular tribute not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), who chaired the Committee with excellent judgment, but to the Committee Clerks and my fellow Committee members, who put so much time and effort into the report.
Some of the key issues thrown up by the report are far from the fire and brimstone media controversy about the chief inspector himself. For me, one of the report's most significant and important recommendations is that Ofsted should take account of significant variables, such as pupil mobility and absence. As a constituency Member of Parliament, those matters are particularly important, as annual student turnover at some of my schools is 30 to 40 per cent.
Evidence is now beginning to emerge from the Department for Education and Employment on local education authorities that, in their educational development plans, have highlighted problems in pupil

enrolment turnover. LEAs with such problems are often in inner-city areas—particularly London boroughs with large short-term housing and transient groups—old manufacturing areas and seaside towns, in which the seasonal demands of the tourist industry and poor-quality housing exacerbate the problem. In 1997–98, my own local education authority, for example, took 1,200 pupils into its primary schools as non-routine admissions, constituting 15 per cent. of our entire primary school population.
I am, therefore, pleased that, in our report, the Committee has highlighted turnover as a crucial factor. I am pleased also that the chief inspector has recognised that it is an important factor, and that there have been indications that it will be included formally in the future inspection process.
I should also like to comment on the shorter, demystified inspections—which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North described as the secular equivalent of a royal visit, with all the trappings and traumas that go with that. Schools may not have new loos, but they have crates of paperwork and, if anyone ever wanted to stage that famous Gogol play "The Government Inspector", Ofsted would provide a very good context in which to do so.
The Select Committee also tried to highlight in our report the fact that Ofsted and its inspectors perform a job that, necessarily, steers a third way between the audit approach and the management consultancy approach. Inspectors of course have to maintain an element of detachment, but they and Ofsted also have a duty to use their material to achieve the intended effect. Moreover, when the glass is not only half full, but 80 to 90 per cent. full, the chief inspector has a duty to recognise that fact in his comments.
Accountability is a key issue: the question of who governs the governors is particularly relevant to Ofsted. The current structure of accountability—there is such a structure—is curiously attenuated.
When we discuss options for the future, I hope that Ministers will reflect again on some of the issues mentioned in the report that they have not yet dealt with—particularly the board of commissioners and quinquennial reviews.
The main issue is broader than Ofsted alone, however, and touches on the role that Parliament might play in an increasingly audit-obsessed society. It is also about the role that Parliament will have to play because of the increased importance of secondary legislation and the increased number of agencies that, inevitably, do not have to come before the Bar of the House. To that extent, in considering Ofsted, concerns about centralisation and checking the Executive are particularly relevant.
I believe that Ofsted has an important role to play and a very good future ahead of it. However, if it is to play that role and have that future, Ofsted and the chief inspector of schools—whoever he or she may be in future—must learn the lessons of Ofsted's first few years and make necessary adjustments.
Ofsted faces new challenges and new tests, not least the inspection of local education authorities and involvement in the post-16 sector. Although it is right and proper that Ofsted should be so involved, it is also important that Ofsted and the chief inspector do not go for easy applause and simplistic solutions that ignore current good practice.


That includes—in relation to the Further Education Funding Council, for example—taking on board feedback and college inspectors, who are very supportive.
It is not surprising that concerns have already been expressed that Mr. Woodhead's hitherto gung-ho approach will go down like a lead balloon if he attempts to apply it in the further education sector. We must not lose the gains that have been made there.
Ofsted has been a successful caravan, but it is a caravan that must move on. Although there must be no slacking on standards in Ofsted, neither must it constitute a hanging jury. If I were Mr. Woodhead, I should have gone away, read the Committee's report and digested what was said in it. He might also consider the reported remarks of Zsa Zsa Gabor—it may have been Mae West—that
Guys who act too macho aren't always mucho.
I welcome the report's recommendations and the role that we propose for Ofsted. However, as I said at the beginning of the Select Committee's press conference on the report, it is vitally important that the singer is not allowed to get in the way of the song.

Mr. James Clappison: This has been a good debate on an important subject and important report. The Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), began the debate with a thoughtful and measured speech, and all the subsequent speeches have followed in the same vein. The hon. Gentleman and the members of the Committee deserve our congratulations on having produced a balanced and sensible report which is plainly the result of a very great deal of hard work. The Opposition feel that the report and its recommendations should help to take forward Ofsted's work.
The Committee deserves to be congratulated also on having chosen Ofsted as the subject of such a major inquiry. Occasionally, Ofsted has had a relatively high profile and been the subject of much comment. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) caught the flavour of some of that comment when he described it as "noises off'. Against that background, it is good for the Select Committee to examine an organisation that has become such an important part of the fabric of our education system.
Ofsted was established in 1992, and it is fair to say that its advent was not greeted with universal acclaim. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) made some well-justified remarks about that fact. Since 1992, however, Ofsted has undoubtedly been a success, which has been reflected in the speeches in this debate. As the hon. Member for Croydon, North rightly said, Ofsted's work takes its place—with the national curriculum, national testing and publication of results—as one of the pillars supporting and driving forward higher standards in our schools.
I agreed with the evaluation of Ofsted made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), and with the description by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green)

of Ofsted as a force for good. The Opposition think that it would be difficult to overestimate the part that Ofsted has played in raising standards in our schools, not least because of the greater rigour and frequency that it has brought to the inspection process.
School inspections were much less frequent before the inception of Ofsted inspections. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, I have heard estimates suggesting that, before Ofsted began its inspection regime, on average, secondary schools were inspected once every 50 years, and primary schools once every 200 years. I am not sure whether those estimates are entirely accurate, but inspections were certainly much less frequent before Ofsted started its work, and Ofsted's inspection cycle is certainly a big step forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne was right also to draw a connection between Ofsted's inspections and improvements—sometimes dramatic improvements—in schools. He mentioned the Bishop Bell school in his constituency, and undoubtedly many other hon. Members could give examples of similarly high standards being achieved by schools in their constituencies. Not all high-achieving heads and teachers can go on television to receive awards, but we should be unstinting in recognising the good work in our constituencies.
The task before us now is to find how best to build on the success of Ofsted—and there has been common ground across the House on that objective. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made a thoughtful and valuable contribution, based on his relevant experience. However, I had a slight reservation when he started to talk about a full review. There is no question about the necessity of Ofsted, or about the way in which it is doing its work in general. As with the report, the purpose of any review should be to see how to build on what is being achieved. The report is an important aid in carrying out that task and, as the hon. Gentleman said, each of the recommendations calls for a careful response from the Government.
I do not propose to go through each of the recommendations, but several need to be highlighted. One key issue is quality. Are the financial incentives now in place compatible with the high quality of inspections for which we are all looking? From the report and the evidence, it appears that the Minister was broadly satisfied with the present arrangements to ensure quality. The Committee was less sanguine about the matter at paragraphs 35 and 36, in which it stated:
we are anxious to ensure that the quality of every inspection team is high, and we have some sympathy with the concerns of inspection contractors who argued that the current process did not provide incentives for contractors to put in place high-quality training, development and quality assurance systems … We therefore take these concerns seriously as the contracting process has a significant impact on the quality of inspection team which is assembled by the successful contractor. The overall aim is to reach the highest level of quality which can be provided for by the system.
That is one part of the Committee's report which calls for a particularly careful response, as does the part in which the Committee draws attention to the relationship between inspection quality and inspectors' pay. I listened to the interesting comments of the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) on this subject, and


there appears to be good sense in the Committee's recommendation in paragraph 44 that Ofsted should undertake a study into rates of pay.
Ofsted needs to look at the Committee's findings on unacceptably poor inspection practice, and to respond to the Committee's call to examine any potential flaws in its own quality assurance systems. The Committee also made sensible suggestions which are worthy of exploration on a range of other subjects, including feedback from inspections; improving the clarity of reports and cutting out jargon; and governing bodies nominating an observer to the inspection team. It is also common sense that self-evaluation should be complementary to external inspection, and not a substitute for it, as the hon. Member for Croydon, North said. Rigorous external inspection is indispensable.
In paragraph 110, significantly, the Committee welcomes the introduction of short inspections, which accord with the wider principle—now being given some currency—of intervention in inverse proportion to success. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The Minister for School Standards, and the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), signify their assent for that principle. We agree, but—without introducing a discordant note—we wonder whether there are certain areas where it could be applied more consistently than it is at the moment. That principle holds good throughout education, and not just in those parts where the Government wish it to apply.
The report referred also to the length of notice of inspections, and also to snap inspections. That was valuable, as this matter was clearly in the mind of Ofsted. Ofsted announced recently that the period of notice of inspections given to schools is to be reduced from two terms to between six and 10 weeks. The case has been made for a shorter period of notice for inspections, and the Committee concluded that it was in favour of reducing the period of notice of inspection to the shortest term that was practical. The Committee believed that four weeks' notice was appropriate, and there is merit in that approach. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield agreed with that proposition.
We wonder whether it is possible to take the debate further on unannounced, so-called snap inspections. There is a good deal to be said for those as well. We note the evidence of the chief inspector, who said that he could see merit in the proposal. Paragraph 112 of the report states that snap visits might have several purposes—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that there was an agreement that the time would be split more or less 50:50 between the two debates. The second debate has already conceded a little time to allow for an 8 o'clock finish. We are not leaving much time for the Minister to wind up if the hon. Gentleman is still speaking at four minutes to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the Chair is not party to any arrangements but is guided by the rules of the House. I understand that this debate could go on until six minutes to nine. As the

hon. Gentleman says, there may be some arrangement for the debate to finish earlier, but that has nothing to do with the Chair.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not see that there can be anything further to the point of order, as everything is in good order.

Mrs. Dunwoody: May I nevertheless ask whether you have had any message from Opposition Front Benchers? Since they think transport is so important, I am sure that they would not want to hold up the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are always conversations between hon. Members and the occupant of the Chair but, as the hon. Lady knows, they are private.

Mr. Clappison: In light of that remark, I will do my best to put my contribution in the bus lane. I will fast-track it as well as I can and watch out for ministerial cars coming up behind me.
We believe that snap inspections have a part to play and could give additional reassurance to parents. Generally, the report suggests a number of refinements which would add to the effectiveness of Ofsted. Parents in particular value high-quality, rigorous inspection of schools, and parents appreciate some of the leadership that has been given in this regard by Ofsted.
The leadership of Ofsted—to which the Committee refers at the end of the report—has been mentioned today, although I take the point made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South that the report was structurally driven, rather than personality driven. For our part, we think that there is value in having high-profile leadership which draws public attention to issues emerging from Ofsted's work which must be addressed.
Transport is very important, but so are some of the issues that we are discussing at the moment. They include the report on primary schools issued by Ofsted at the end of last week, which it is worth remarking—given the comments about the critical character of some reports—drew attention to the progress that had been made over the period of Ofsted's inspections; to the good practice that was going on; and to rising standards in primary schools. The report traced some of the reasons for that—in particular, the reduction in the amount of topic-led discussions, and more whole-class teaching, which can be identified as two vital factors responsible for rising standards in our primary schools.
Paragraph 215 of the report says:
Mr Jim Hudson, Headteacher of Two Mile Ash School, expressed the view that OFSTED itself was well regarded by parents, due in part to the fact that 'HM Chief Inspector has not failed to confront the issues and parents' perception of OFSTED's work has been enhanced in the process'.
We agree. There is a place for leadership that opens up the issues. Education should not be, as it has so often been described in the past, a secret garden; it should be a place where parents can come in and take an interest, and someone should evaluate schools and reflect their concerns.
Sometimes the message from Ofsted reassures parents, but there are times when parents need to hear messages that are less reassuring. Parents value Ofsted's work and are keenly interested in what it has to say. We had an illustration of that earlier today in the case of the parents of heather Begbie, who transferred her from a junior school that was said to be failing its Ofsted inspection to the junior school of a leading independent school, and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is talking about a court decision. That is nothing to do with the report and it is not a matter on which I would want him to dwell.

Mr. Clappison: Of course I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All I say is that parents will look to Ministers to keep their promises.
The report is important. It has given Ofsted a clean bill of health while suggesting some refinements to assist it in its valuable work. The Committee deserves congratulation. The report builds on success, so let us not alter the foundations that have brought about that success but instead look for ways in which we can refine Ofsted's work and bring even greater success and higher standards in the future.

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Let me put on the record my appreciation for the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) and the Committee in producing the report. They took on a challenging task, given the nature of the evidence and the enthusiasm of some of those who attended the meetings. They have come up with a thoughtful report, which looks back but which mostly looks forward, to the way in which we can build on Ofsted's success.
I assure all concerned that the Government will reflect on the report and produce a formal reply in due course, so tonight I will only touch on a few of the points that have been made, especially bearing in mind the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
This is probably one of those issues on which Government and Opposition Front Benchers will not argue a great deal. That is to some extent a sign of Ofsted's success; it is now part of the education landscape, and our debates are about its future and how to improve it, not about whether it should exist at all. We must remind ourselves that it is not very long since the debate in the education profession outside the House was about whether there was a need for external inspection.
It is good that everybody in the education service now acknowledges that external inspection is right, helps to identify both weaknesses and good practice and gives us a wealth of information on the basis of which we can make judgments and policies; but as there are still a small—and I believe dwindling—minority of people outside the House who do not believe in external

inspection, it is right that we should take every opportunity to reconfirm how important it is in the effort to raise standards.

Mr. Waterson: Can the Minister imagine a Labour Government ever introducing Ofsted?

Ms Morris: Of course I can. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman could not keep his comments in line with the atmosphere that has pervaded this debate. Ofsted is a good news story. The Labour party never voted against it. It behoves us as a Parliament to improve on the good start that has been made and not to back-track into political point scoring.
I welcome and endorse the report's comments about the need for external inspection. I want to put on record my thanks to Chris Woodhead and all the inspectors and staff at Ofsted who got it up and running. We all bring our personal style to our jobs, and heaven forbid that senior jobs should be done without any personal style. Because of the opposition from the profession at the start of the process, it certainly needed somebody with the determination and vision of Chris Woodhead to get Ofsted off the ground and ensure that it stayed on track. It is to his credit and that of his staff that we are able to say today that it is rooted in our education system and plays an essential role in it.
It is interesting to compare my experience of being inspected as a teacher with the experience of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). The difference is that the hon. Gentleman entered the House five years later than I did, so he taught under Ofsted. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) and I left teaching in 1992 and we discussed the fact that we had never taught in a school that had had a full inspection. I spent 18 years teaching, and my hon. Friend spent 20—he is clearly a great deal older than me. Somebody mentioned 50 years, but I want to make it clear that that does not apply in our case. I welcome the fact that there are now regular inspections.
The need to praise teachers is absolutely crucial. There are many outstanding teachers in this country. I join the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough in paying tribute to what he and I experienced last night at the national teaching awards, which were a celebration of excellence and a long overdue recognition of the contribution that teachers make day in and day out. I congratulate the winners and all those who entered, as well as the National Teaching Awards Trust and the BBC, which has shown its commitment to public broadcasting at the highest level.
We must get the balance of pressure and support right. We all do that in our own ways. We know as politicians that criticism makes headlines and praise often does not. When the chief inspector praises schools, as he does each year in the list of outstanding schools in his annual report, it may make regional headlines but it does not make national headlines. I make a plea to those who have responsibility for reporting education news to give as many column inches to the successes as to the criticisms.
There is a bit in all of us that picks up the criticisms and not the praise. I plead with the teaching profession not to be so defensive and to accept that it, like any profession, will have members who are good and members who are poor. I ask it to rejoice in the success of its good members and to join in criticising the performance of its weak members.
Two groups of people suffer when we have weak teachers: the pupils and the teachers who have to pick up the pieces when they take the children the next year. I hope that the profession will come to value Ofsted because it pinpoints poor practice and allows good practice to be praised.
It is important to remember that Ofsted has not stood still since its start. We almost do not need five-yearly reviews. Some of the changes that we have made to the Ofsted system in the past two years include feedback to teachers on lessons that have been observed. That is now in place. We have introduced a limit on the daily amount of observation to which any individual teacher can be subject. Several hon. Members mentioned the reduced notice period—from five terms to two—and that is now in place. The summary reports, which make key information available to parents, are now in place. Inspection reports on the second round can now comment on the progress made since the report on the first inspections.
Inspection contractors will be named in reports and the details of any areas where they lead will be given. The quality standards for inspections were introduced from September last year. We also have a new complaints procedure that has been strengthened by the appointment of an independent adjudicator. The House will know that the Government have made plans to identify coasting schools, which lurk in the middle of the performance tables and can get too complacent, so that we can determine whether they need to make further improvements. The period of notice for school inspections will be reduced to about six weeks and shorter inspections will be introduced for schools which, on the evidence, are doing well.
We must remember that Ofsted is constantly evolving, as it should. That fact, together with Ofsted's role as a central part of the education service, is much to be welcomed. I again put on record the contribution that Ofsted and the chief inspector make in working with us so that we can improve the system.
The Committee's report contains much that we wish to reflect on and take forward. Almost every hon. Member who has spoken mentioned pupil mobility, which is a challenge to which Parliament and those in the education service outside the classroom have only just turned their minds but which teachers have had to cope with for many years. Some of our schools have year groups with up to 70 per cent. pupil mobility in one year. Many of those mobile pupils bring a range of challenging behaviour—some are refugees or do not have English as their first language. Some are mobile because of family breakdown, and suffer from the insecurity that can bring. It must be

right for an inspection of such schools to recognise those circumstances. We are working with Ofsted so that as we develop the framework we can collect and report information about pupil mobility.
I also listened carefully to the comments that were made about special schools. I shall reflect on those comments, but the key message must be that we expect as much from children in special schools as we do from children in any other school. I do not want to go back to a system in which one looks for good care in special schools, not robust education. In getting the balance right, we might have been harder than some people wanted, but I will bear in mind the points made by many hon. Members that the measurement of progress in special schools sometimes needs finer judgment than measuring progress in mainstream schools.
I am not persuaded of the case for snap inspections. One of the features of an Ofsted inspection is the process of preparation for it. I agree that such preparation should not be manic, but schools should have a feeling of anticipation and a wish to get their ship in order before the inspection. Our survey showed that schools welcomed a notice period of four to six weeks. However, in some instances, such as cases of bullying, we might want to ensure snap inspections, so that misdemeanours or poor practice could not be hidden. I will reflect on that point and ensure that such inspections are possible.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North talked about a professional dialogue. I hope that, as we move into the second round of Ofsted inspections, we will have the opportunity to celebrate schools that have made progress since the first round of inspections. I also hope that we will have an education service—at Ofsted level, at Government, local and national level, and in the classrooms—that can use the inspection service to have the essential professional dialogue that has been needed for so long.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) was right when she said that the Ofsted inspection identifies weakness. It does not by itself raise standards, but by putting weakness into the public domain it leaves it to the rest of us—policy makers and teachers—to ensure that we use that information to raise standards for children. Ofsted plays a key role in that and I offer my thanks to everybody who enables that organisation to run so smoothly and effectively, and my thanks and congratulations to the Committee and all those who have participated in the debate today.
Question deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates).

Class III

Transport

[Relevant documents: The Ninth Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, on the Integrated Transport White Paper, hC 32-I; and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Departmental Report: The Government's Expenditure Plans 1999–2000 to 2001–02 (Cm 4204).]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further revised sum not exceeding £25,917,026,000 be granted to her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 2000 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.—[Mr. Hanson.]

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Owing to a serendipitous spelling mistake in the report we have published today, which includes the Government's response to the ninth report of our Committee, on integrated transport, the words of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister have been described not as "Foreword from the Deputy Prime Minister", but as "Forward with the Deputy Prime Minister", which is a useful indication of what is happening to the transport system under the present Government. That is true not least because some people not unconnected with the previous Government have, on the road to Damascus, discovered the transport system. That is a welcome change, but it is not one on which the Government have based their examination of the need for proper planning of the transport system.
When we talk about an integrated transport system, we tend to talk about individual types of transport without saying that what we need to do is to think seriously about whether our modern society can continue to make a god of the combustion engine. That is not to say that it will be simple to encourage people out of their little tin boxes into alternative forms of transport, or that the car is not needed. It is not even to say that we should take a punitive attitude to one form of transport and ignore the implications for others. It is to say that we have to plan the transport system if we want to tackle congested cities and roads; if we care about the quality of the air we breathe; if we care about children who live in those cities; and if we want a civilised society in which quality of life is related to housing and to the facilities and services available to us.
This applies across the board, and does not involve merely seeking ways to build more and more roads. The previous Government did that and, when it turned out too expensive, they produced more and more wish lists of what they thought was important in transport.
We want something very different. We want a rail system—some of it is 120 years old—that is fully integrated with a bus system that has, alas, been allowed to run down. That integrated system should be fully responsive to the needs of elderly and young alike, and not regarded as a second-rate alternative whose importance is demeaned and for which Government expenditure priorities are ignored.
The Select Committee report looks at all forms of transport and how they should relate to each other. We have considered where more Government money, muscle and urgency should be applied, and we have searched for the positive points that can be gathered from our study.
I regret that the amount of legislation on constitutional change that has gone through the House has meant that we have had to wait two years to get the Bill establishing the Strategic Rail Authority. That important piece of legislation will come before the House in the autumn, and it will give impetus to the changes that need to be made to the rail system. The Bill will try to bring together all the disparate and warring elements of the private railway system, and weld them into a useful and tolerable pattern. Our railways will thus be improved, and people will be able to travel on safe, clean and reliable trains.
I hope that the Bill will follow the Committee's recommendations. For example, we believe that the industry should plan to make bus and rail stations information points and the nubs of properly integrated services, and that those stations should be made to relate to each other.
We believe that we should not think of railways without thinking about the safety of the people who travel by rail, which means enforcement, and ensuring a high standard of cleanliness and safety. Moreover, we should not think of bus services as a transport system in decline, used only by the poor. We should plan to put Government money into rural bus services and better facilities, and thus ensure that they are related, one to another.
When the Committee asks for more staff to man rail and bus stations for longer hours, we are responding to what so many passengers want. They want better lighting so that they feel safe, and they want to know that all facilities are readily accessible. That is what people want—be they the elderly, mothers with young children, or people who simply need a reliable and punctual service.
The Government will have to give serious consideration to the powers that the Strategic Rail Authority and the regulators will have. Those bodies will need the power to compel operators to integrate services, which should not be allowed to operate as if they were totally independent of one another.
Local transport plans will require considerable Government funding. The Government will have to tell those companies taking taxpayer's money that they must produce results. Money must not be used to fund companies that respond by upping payments to shareholders without providing the services that people need.

Mr. James Gray: Does the hon. Lady agree that interventionism and central planning, such as she has described, are unlikely to achieve the increase in numbers of passengers that the companies need if they are to make the greater profits that she mentioned? It is a mistake to say that the companies are awful because they are trying to make lots of money. The companies are splendid for exactly that reason, as they make money by attracting more passengers to use their trains and buses. In that way, they achieve exactly what the hon. Lady desires.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Unfortunately, many of the companies have grown so used to managing for decline


that they have not responded to the perceived stimuli of the market, or to the needs set out by local authorities and passengers. It is extraordinary that bus companies must be encouraged to think seriously about the quality of the services that they provide. When I visited my local hospital on Friday, for example, it was a great relief to find that Cheshire county council is using Government money to provide high-quality buses at the times and places that they are needed and of the size required. That should not be a difficult or revolutionary idea: it is a sensible response to the needs of the modern passenger.
I know that other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who is my co-Chairman on the Committee, will want to talk about the aspects of the Government plan that cover the environment, housing and planning. In the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, Chairmen come in pairs, like all good dining room furniture. I hope that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate.
The Committee looked at the amounts of money being spent by the Government and the facilities that that money is being used to provide. My reservations about Railtrack are well known, but the Committee studied in great detail the amounts of money that it has promised for investment. We looked at some grandiose plans that boil down to quite small amounts of cash, and we examined the suggestion that Railtrack could invest only if it got matching money from—guess who?—the taxpayer.
I am afraid that we said some rather harsh things. For instance, we said that we did not think that Railtrack was very entrepreneurial, and that we saw no evidence in the company's track record that it was prepared to put money into the system. We also made it clear that we expected the Government, and especially the new regulator, to look closely at the deals that were being offered. There has to be an end to the assumption—made by all transport companies when they are in trouble—that they can run to the Government for a few bars of gold without being expected to provide results. I look forward, therefore, to the establishment of the new Strategic Rail Authority in the autumn.
I believe that the Government's plans for light rail will transform many cities. It is extraordinary that people seem to think that there is an advantage to be gained from sitting in a traffic jam. We are allowing our city centres to become more and more clogged because we refuse to plan for any management of the combustion engine; but that does the motorist no favours. Given the increase in car ownership, we cannot continue to allow people continually to use their motor cars when proper alternatives exist. However, those alternatives must be seamless, comfortable, clean and available, and I believe that those aspects of the problem are set out very well in the report.
It is also rather depressing that Conservative Members should have published today's slightly strange statement about their being the motorist's friends. I understand the reason, but it is sad that those elements of our report that deal with road safety and speed are ignored by the proposals in the Opposition's press statement. It is as if the attainment of lower road accident statistics and the achievement of improved safety are not important. Speed

kills, and it continues to kill. Those who ignore that fact will be personally responsible for the deaths of many people in future.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Lady has obviously not read the document to which she refers.

Mrs. Dunwoody: indicated assent.

Mr. Jenkin: She may have a little flyer, but the document in its entirety deals substantially with safety issues. We think that 3,500 deaths on the road every year are far too many. Will she agree, first, that the Government whom she supports inherited one of the best road safety records in Europe? Secondly, does she agree that the slashed investment in the roads programme means that roads will continue to be dangerous that would otherwise have been made safe by these schemes, had the Government continued to invest in them? Who then is responsible for the continuing deaths on British roads today?

Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman will get his chance to make his own speech and his own apologia pro vita sua. Frankly, to suggest to motorists that there is an easy way out of congestion by not planning for the future is not only a failure of a political party, but an irresponsible attitude to the use of road transport. However, I have been tempted twice and I promise not to be tempted again, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The reality is that the Government think seriously not only about the integration of cycling, walking and the various transport systems, but about freight. In response to the suggestions in our report, they have laid out some sensible plans which most of us will want to be carried out as soon as possible. However, that will require co-operation from the railway system, co-operation in road transport, and a considerable amount of rethinking the role of the city—the way in which and the speed at which we deliver goods, and the manner in which we plan our transport and freight systems. That will require the support and certainly the clear view of the Government.
I wish to make one or two personal comments in closing. The Deputy Prime Minister has not always had a good press because he insists on making it clear that he believes that transport is fundamental to the economy and planning of the United Kingdom. That is a subject that seems to have been rediscovered only recently. The fact that we have had to wait some time for legislation, even though sums of money have been poured into different aspects of transport, might give the impression that there was no sense of urgency in the Government. I do not believe that that is so.
When the Deputy Prime Minister goes out of his way to write a foreword to a Select Committee report saying,
As we approach the beginning of the 21st century, we are entering a new era in transport policy.
There is a growing consensus that we cannot go on as we have been",
he reflects a set of priorities that the Government and certainly the House ought to regard as vital.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am exceedingly grateful to my hon. Friend for her characteristic courtesy in giving way. She has mentioned


safety on more than one occasion. My question relates to maritime safety and to the laudable objective outlined on page 171 of the annual report of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: that of
improving safety for those who use the sea for transport, employment or leisure".
Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the Government's response to her excellent report on the Coastguard agency?

Mrs. Dunwoody: As my hon. Friend knows, the Committee and I have strong views on the Coastguard service. There will be no safety for the people of this country unless we understand that it is the maintenance of that vital service that keeps us all safe as we use the seas.
Finally, I am proud of the report. The Select Committee worked hard on it. All members of that Committee contributed considerably. The Government's response shows that they understand that it maps the way forward. Their response is good. Let us now, as it says in the foreword, go forward with the Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr. Tom Brake: This is certainly a timely opportunity for a debate on the ninth report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. The debate coincides with press reports that the Deputy Prime Minister will keep his transport job and with the Conservatives reaffirming the strength of what they claim is their love for the motorist.
The previous Administration fuelled the demand for more cars by building more roads. That is clearly identified on page 91 of the annual report of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Between 1979 and 1997, total capital expenditure on roads topped £50 billion, and between 1986 and 1996, almost 1,700 km of motorways and trunk roads were completed. Did that help to ease congestion? Did it help motorists, businesses, pedestrians or the less well off? No, it did not. It only ensured that traffic increased by a total of 75 per cent. over the period.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Can the hon. Gentleman imagine what would have happened during that period of great economic growth, and hence transport growth, if that road-building programme had not been put in place? What would congestion now be like if we had not built those roads?

Mr. Brake: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. No doubt she will have heard of predict and provide in road building.
One looks in vain to the Department's annual report for significant measures to tackle congestion. That lack of policy is reflected, at paragraph 62 of the Select Committee's report, by witnesses who gave evidence that current Government policy fails to provide for road traffic reduction.
Tough choices are being postponed because Galaxy man must be allowed to cruise. That is why paragraph 63 of the Select Committee report describes the White Paper as

vague about the rate of traffic growth the Government would consider acceptable.
That is also why the Select Committee makes no fewer than 76 recommendations about how to tackle the transport crisis that the country faces.
On the London underground, the public-private partnership is behind time and has been criticised by almost everyone who has more than a passing knowledge of the subject, including academics, business men, Labour MPs and trade unionists. It has also been criticised in a report of the Transport Sub-Committee. Chapter 13 of the DETR annual report highlights that very problem, and states that the London Transport grant will fall to just £81 million in 2001, on the basis that the PPP will kick in at that point. It will not, however.
The Government' recent White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", and their consultation paper, "Breaking the Logjam", were welcome and made constructive suggestions about how to improve public transport and encourage more cycling. Yet the Select Committee deemed it necessary to highlight, in recommendation (s), that there will be no increase in cycling if it is not made safer, making it impossible to fulfil the requirement to double cycle use in the UK.
Any Bill will need to achieve four aims: reduce overall traffic levels; produce greater cohesion between modes of transport; give a greater incentive for commuters to use public transport, and allow local authorities to reuse funds raised from road charging for investment in public transport. All those points are contained in the report's recommendations.
A reduction in overall traffic levels must be the starting point for any integrated transport policy. Everyone recognises the need to do something about congestion and traffic. Yet as I have already stated, that is entirely missing from the Government's plans and the White Paper, though it is highlighted in the Select Committee report. Chapter 7 of the DETR's annual report is unhelpful and refers only to reducing traffic growth.
The Government have made a two-stage promise: first, to reduce traffic growth and then to reverse it. That was the correct promise, and that is what the Select Committee report calls for. The promise should be kept because of the increase in asthma. There are now 3 million asthma sufferers in the UK, half of whom are children. The DETR has a clear objective on that, and chapter 7 of its annual report says that its work is aimed at improving health.
The two-stage promise should be kept because of the Government's international pledges, signed in Kyoto, to reduce CO, emissions. In the UK, CO, emissions from road transport are the fastest growing contributor to climate change. In fact, vehicle emissions account for more than one fifth of CO, emissions in the UK. The objective is of course identified in the Department's annual report, which refers to the
important contributions to climate change and air quality targets
that the transport sector can make. No one must forget that the UK has signed a legally binding target to reduce greenhouse gases, and that the Labour party has made a commitment to reducing CO2, emissions by 20 per cent.
The promises must be kept for these very reasons—and others, such as the need to reduce road congestion. Road congestion costs British industry £15 billion a year, and the annual report does not neglect that. It identifies 37 road schemes that will save £2.35 billion in operating costs, which must be welcomed.
An obvious point that is often forgotten is that the car, which gives independence to many, does not give independence to the one third of all households that do not have access to one. We know that such households tend to be worse off. So a love affair with the car can be socially regressive. The car does not, as the official Opposition's document that was published today claims, "liberate" those without one. These are the reasons why we must reduce road traffic, as is acknowledged at paragraph 74 of the report.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how reducing the availability of the car and people's access to it will increase mobility and freedom? That seems to be what he is arguing.

Mr. Brake: That was not the point that I was making. I was referring to the need to reduce road traffic. An exclusive emphasis on the role of the car, neglecting the fact that one third of people do not have access to one, is socially regressive.

Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brake: I am sure that I would be called to order by the Deputy Speaker if I took too many interventions on the same point.
We should move towards taxing the use, not the ownership, of vehicles. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree with that key point. We should increase vehicle excise duty for the least efficient vehicles, and abolish it for those that are most efficient. The Select Committee's ninth report is perhaps too reticent on that subject.
Taxing fuel is fine, but to achieve a reduction in traffic, we must invest in public transport. The motorist must see some gain before a moderate amount of pain. Services and routes provided by different modes of transport must be co-ordinated, and journey terminals should be linked so that switching between bus and train or train and bicycle becomes simple and safe. Many recommendations in the report refer to aspects of such issues.
We should create a strategic transport authority that has responsibility for both rail and bus regulation. I am disappointed that the Select Committee did not take up that option.
We must target journeys that pollute the most and which are easiest to reduce in number. That means two things: giving greater incentives to commuters to use public transport, and reducing the number of people who take their children to school by car. Some progress has been made through the safer routes to school initiative, which I hope will be further expanded. The Select Committee did not overlook such points in its report.
Local authorities have a huge part to play in improving our transport infrastructure. We should allow them to introduce road congestion charging where public transport alternatives are available or under development. Crucially, we must let them keep the revenue from road charging, parking and fines to facilitate reinvestment in public transport. That is covered by recommendation (ppp) of the ninth report.
We have to enable local authorities to use carrots in their fight against congestion. Local authorities will need the financial resources to introduce pedestrian zones,

public-transport-only zones, and home zones with 20 mph limits and traffic calming schemes. Without finance, car-free city centres that are pleasant to live, work and shop in will remain a pipedream. That is why I wholly support recommendation (qqq) of the ninth report, which would give local authorities the ability to raise money for investment on the basis of future revenue streams.
To conclude, I believe that the Government should hold firm to their commitments and respond positively to the recommendations in the Select Committee report. They should not backtrack in the face of a Tory relaunch as the motorist's friend. The Liberal Democrats firmly believe that the measures outlined in the ninth report should be implemented. They would reduce overall traffic levels, increase cohesion as between modes of transport, provide more incentive for commuters to use public transport, and allow local authorities to re-use funds raised from road charging for investment in public transport. But the Government are running out of time, and they need to make an urgent start now.

Mr. Graham Stringer: I have spent nearly 20 years arguing with the Deputy Prime Minister about aviation policy, trams and regional policy—agreeing more than disagreeing—but I should like to say, in the light of the disputes that there have been, that this country is very lucky to have a Deputy Prime Minister with his experience and expertise. In his response, he acknowledges that the only significant difference between the Select Committee and the Government is on the speed and the amount of resources, not on the general direction in which the Select Committee and the Government are going.
I have watched, listened and read with incredulity the statements by the Conservative Opposition in the past week. If I am right, this morning the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was saying that people were rushing to get on buses—that competition in the bus industry had worked. Has he actually read the statistics showing what has happened to the bus industry since deregulation in 1985?
There has been a 70 per cent. cut in subsidy. When Conservative Members are clamouring for more resources for road building, for railways and for buses, they should remember that, during their time in office, the money that was going to buses in most of the country was cut by 70 per cent.—in London, between 90 per cent. and nearly 100 per cent. During the same period, passenger numbers fell by 30 per cent. and bus miles went up by 30 per cent. I shall return to that point. Fares rose by 25 per cent. in rural areas and 50 per cent. in urban areas.
In the privatised industry, for 10 years or so there was almost no investment in buses. That destroyed the manufacture of buses in this country; only two factories are left. In fact, the bus industry was a complete mess. We did not get competition at the end of that period; we certainly got a great deal of pollution. That meant extra bus miles and fewer passengers, and as a result the Conservative Government achieved something that one would have thought scarcely possible before their time in office—in many city centres, each bus passenger mile created greater pollution than each car passenger mile. Only the deplorably inefficient system that they had created could have done that.
The Opposition have been saying that competition in the bus industry is working. Admittedly, in the first two to four years after deregulation and the privatisation of much of the industry, there was huge and inefficient competition on the roads in most urban areas, while buses simply disappeared in many rural areas. Road space in cities was wasted. However, we have now left behind the time when buses were driven dangerously and neither cars nor buses could get along our roads.
We are in a post-competitive phase. Circumstantial and direct evidence given by competitor companies is overwhelming in every city. It is that there are cartels and anti-competitive practices. From Manchester, for example, reports and evidence were provided to the Select Committee from a number of bus companies. However, the market is dominated by Stagecoach in the south and by FirstGroup in the north. Rarely do these companies compete with each other. Of course, Greater Manchester is a large area and there are one or two smaller companies.
There have been fascinating interviews. Stagecoach and FirstGroup have been interviewed twice because of their dominant position in the market. Simple questions have been asked. For example, "If Stagecoach has lower fares, better buses, has invested more than FirstGroup, provides a more reliable service and by and large has demonstrated that in Greater Manchester it offers a better service, why does it not compete in the areas of the north where FirstGroup is running a poor, inefficient service with higher fares?" It seems that the company cannot give an answer that would stand up to any criticism. In fact, it is implementing anti-competitive practices. It is almost a cartel. That is to the disbenefit of the travelling public.
That is why the Select Committee and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, in two interviews, are firmly in favour of re-regulating the bus industry. Whether it is quality contracts or re-regulation, when bus companies are operating as I have described and a Government are determined to improve the public transport system by improving bus services, there is a need for regulation. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has said, if four or five extra passengers travel on a bus and that brings £400 million into the bus industry—I think that that is the figure—not all of that money will go into transport improvements or helping the passenger. The money will simply be bottom lined. That is why the Select Committee is in favour of regulation of one—

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Would my hon. Friend care to speculate on why the previous Conservative Government decided not to take the deregulation route for the capital? Why did they decide that London was a special case?

Mr. Stringer: Having seen the chaos that had been created in the west midlands, Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh, I think that they decided that there were too many marginal seats in London to make it wise electorally to bring the so-called benefits of deregulation to the capital. Wisely, or for self-interest, that was their decision. London is the only part of the country where passenger numbers have not fallen.
For the first time since the second world war, there has been a 1 per cent. increase in the number of people using buses. That is extremely good. It has been brought about

by some of the work done through quality partnerships by various local authorities and passenger transport executives. However, there is scant evidence that motorists are leaving their cars at home or that pensioners or other bus users are using buses more often. Most of the evidence, such as it is, is that those who are already using buses are using them more often rather than people making a modal change. That is important if we are to have the capacity in the public transport system to underpin a thriving economy.
As for metrolink and trams, there has been a dialogue between the Select Committee and the Government, after two reports, about the benefit of light rapid transit systems. In terms of Greater Manchester, one of their benefits is that they are a proven way getting motorists to leave their cars at home. The Manchester tram system, which is an old rail system connected through the centre of the city, is reducing the number of car journeys per year by 2.5 million. That is a terrific benefit to the atmosphere, to the travelling public and to the motorist. The system is being extended to Eccles, and the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority wants to extend it into north Manchester, to Oldham and Rochdale, into east Manchester out to Ashton-under-Lyne and into south Manchester, to the airport.
I hope that the Government will find a way to fund the expansion. Eventually the system will be self-funding, but it needs some initial capital, through a private finance initiative arrangement, the public sector or privately. Later, by using car parking charges or some other means, it will balance.
The benefits to the Government and the travelling public would be enormous. The system would take up to 10 million cars off the road every year and reduce the number of car journeys by 11 million vehicle/kilometres a year. It would create 5,000 jobs and increase the gross domestic product of Greater Manchester by £169 million. It would also benefit the Government by providing an example of an integrated transport system that worked. All of us who care about public transport need that.
The system that would run into Manchester airport would be the first multi-modal interchange that brought together trams, trains, aeroplanes and buses. It is a national disgrace that only two airports in this country are served by fast main-line trains. A tram link would help to ensure that more people used public transport to reach Manchester airport. I should declare an interest as a former director of Manchester airport and as a former member of the Greater Manchester transport authority.
I conclude with two points. Some of the proposals in the White Paper are for the medium term and some must be long term. One of the proposals in the present report and in other reports from the Select Committee on future housing projections has stated firmly that we should not use as many green-field sites as we are using. In the north-west there are sufficient brown-field sites on which to build all the houses required for the foreseeable future. If we want fewer transport problems in future, we must ensure that we use those sites. That will increase the density of population in the city. One has merely to do the sums and compare the effect of 1,000 houses 10 miles from the city centre with the effect of 1,000 houses in the city centre to realise the benefit. That is one long-term solution.
The Select Committee is at present looking into driving tests. We have also considered vehicle inspection and pollution. On every issue that we examine, we find that there is insufficient enforcement, whether in relation to diesel pollution on motorways or cars in cities, where about 20 per cent. of the cars that are badly maintained cause 80 per cent. of the pollution. We are currently receiving evidence that between 800,000 and 2 million people in Britain are driving without driving licences. That is a shocking figure. If there were more enforcement by the Vehicle Inspectorate, the police and all the other enforcement authorities, that would bring about a short-term improvement in the transport situation.

9 pm

Mr. James Gray: Serving on a Select Committee produces a curious kind of split personality: one finds oneself liking, admiring, listening to and even becoming friends with those with whom one has fundamental disagreements. For example, it is an honour to serve under the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), whose grasp of sound common sense often makes me wonder how she can possibly be in the same Labour party as some of her hon. Friends. Equally, one respects the knowledge that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) has of Manchester and of the inner cities, although he perhaps knows less of other areas.
I often tweak the tail of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) because he talks glibly about the countryside even though he lives in central London. He is more at home talking about such things as walking, cycling, integrated transport and cutting vehicle emissions, which are the home territory of the Liberal Democrats, than some of the issues on which he pontificates often in this place.
The report of the Transport Sub-Committee of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee was technically unanimous. Some of us abstained, but we certainly did not divide the Committee. However, we produced a press release highlighting our fundamental differences with a number of points in the report. The whole point of the report is the search for the great grail of an integrated transport system. Every politician of every party in the history of parties has sought to achieve integrated transport—of course they have. I agree with everything the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said about us having to find ways of integrating trains and buses—of course I do; what sensible person would not? But the trouble with so much that new Labour does is that it concerns not what to do and how to achieve it, but aspirations, launches, glossy new brochures, clever cliches and constant talk about the millennium.
I am beginning to suffer from millennium fatigue. I shudder to think what I will do the next time a Minister says that we will drive forward into the new millennium and that everything will be different on 2 January 2000, but that is what so much of the integrated transport White Paper is all about. It is not about doing things, what will happen or legislation that will be in the Queen's Speech, but what we would all like to happen—the 19 daughter papers and all that. There are marvellous words and clever spinning, but that does not amount to a row of beans. Of course we did not divide the Committee, because of course we agree with the vague aspirations in the report, but it was important that we put out a press release

highlighting our differences with the majority of the Committee because so much in it simply does not stack up.
The Government's response to the Select Committee report, which was issued at some pace this afternoon, equally tends to the aspirational—the "hand everything over to a new Committee" way of looking at politics—rather than to anything realistic. It seems to me, to the papers and to every observer across the nation that their whole transport policy is seizing up in the most extraordinary way, but perhaps that is hardly surprising considering who is running it. Just look at who is in charge: the man whose only claim to any knowledge of transport of any kind at all is that he was a steward on a cross-channel ferry and that he now owns two Jaguars.

Caroline Flint: Snob.

Mr. Gray: From a sedentary position, the hon. Lady says that I am a snob. She is quite wrong as I come from a grammar school background. Nothing is snobbish about me, I assure her. My point, which is a powerful one, is that the Deputy Prime Minister has had no experience of any kind of anything to do with transport policy, with the single exception of being an agitator in the National Union of Seamen as a result of his job as a steward on a cross-channel ferry. That is his only experience of transport and that is the point I was making; it has nothing whatever to do with snobbery.

Mrs. Laing: I fear that my hon. Friend is doing the Deputy Prime Minister a disservice. Yesterday, he increased his experience of transport by travelling by helicopter to Silverstone, while the people whom his party always appears to address were waiting in queues on the motorway.

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I understand that, when the Deputy Prime Minister got there, he was so upset by his experience of travelling by helicopter and looking down at the plebs stuck in the traffic that when he went to ask officials how our best driver was doing, he inquired, "How's Damien?". They looked back at him blankly, because he had, of course, mistaken the driver's first name.

Mr. George Stevenson: If the hon. Gentleman is so opposed to the contents of the report, why did he not vote against it rather than using the bolthole of issuing a press release, which he now thinks justifies his point of view?

Mr. Gray: I was happy, in my opening remarks, to try to draw a blind over our reason for not dividing the Committee, but as the hon. Gentleman asks me, perhaps the House will allow me to spell it out in detail. I made it plain to the Committee Chairman that I was determined to divide the Committee, but that, unfortunately, I was unable to be present in the Committee on the day on which the formal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The reason was that I was having a private meeting with a Minister, who refused to move the time of the meeting.

Mr. Stevenson: rose—

Mr. Gray: I shall not give way as I have just done so.
I made it plain to the Chairman that, as I was unable to be there, I could not divide the Committee—

Mr. Stevenson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gray: No, I have given way already and we do not have much time to carry on this sort of banter. My party wholeheartedly and fundamentally disagrees with many of the points in the report. As we could not divide the Committee for procedural reasons, we produced a press release to highlight our differences.
The Deputy Prime Minister, who gets muddled up about the names of our racing buffs, presumably looked down from his helicopter and was unable to spot a bus lane clear of traffic—or a bus lane full of traffic.
I spotted an interesting paragraph in the Government's response to the Select Committee report. The Committee referred to bus lanes and the Government responded:
We agree that comprehensive bus priority measures have a major part to play in making bus travel more attractive and better able to compete with the car in congested areas.
My goodness, the Government have certainly tried to compete with the car. Presumably, it is all right for those in chauffeur-driven limos to compete with buses by making use of bus lanes, but not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) pointed out, for the rest of us who are queueing to get to Silverstone.
What happens to people who drive down bus lanes? The Government have helpfully pointed out in the report what should happen to people such as the Prime Minister, who abused his position by using a bus lane. The report says:
We agree that bus lane infringements need to be subject to appropriately stringent penalties … infringements cause danger, as well as inconvenience, to other road users.
I hope that, this evening, Ministers will carry that message, contained in paragraph (uu) of the Government's response to the report, back to No. 10 Downing street and say that it is not acceptable for Government car service drivers to break the speed limit and that they will get busted, just like the rest of us. Neither is it acceptable for them to drive on the wrong side of the road. It is not acceptable, in their words, to use even the "daft" bus lane—which the Deputy Prime Minister introduced—on the M4 on the way into London from Heathrow.
Frankly, the Deputy Prime Minister is a walking disaster. Perhaps it is just as well that he is walking, because if he were in a car he would be going nowhere fast. Under him comes the Minister for Transport. When we bumped into each other in the Tea Room a moment ago, I mentioned that I would be less than courteous, but I shall try to restrain my discourtesy to her because we all have the highest regard for her abilities in these areas and I mean no personal disrespect to her. However, there is a significant worry about her position in this debate. Constitutionally, she is disallowed from making any remarks about transport in Scotland. As a Scottish Member, the one thing that she may not do is represent her constituents on transport matters. She must leave that to somebody else in holyrood. What does the right hon. Lady do? She comes down here to Westminster and pontificates on English transport—only English transport—which has nothing whatever to do with Scotland. And my goodness, what a mess she makes of it.
Incidentally, I was interested in the remarks made earlier in the debate by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on fox hunting. How odd it would be if Scottish Members of Parliament came down to England and voted out the English sport of fox hunting. We shall return to that at another time. The right hon. Lady for Shotts—

The Minister for Transport (Mrs. Helen Liddell): Airdrie and Shotts.

Mr. Gray: I beg the right hon. Lady's forgiveness for getting her constituency wrong. She is the personification of the West Lothian question. In the forthcoming reshuffle, the Prime Minister must address the question of why my constituents in North Wiltshire have a Scottish Member making a mess of their transport system—and my goodness, what a mess the Government are making of it.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: The hon. Gentleman is concentrating on personal and diversionary matters rather than on policy, because he has no policy.

Mr. Gray: I shall come to policy matters in a moment. My party has today published a policy paper that is full of interesting new ideas, so the hon. Lady is wrong. I should also correct her on one little point. I am not being the slightest bit personal. As I said, I have the highest respect for the Minister for Transport, and I am not being even slightly personal about her. She is in a constitutionally difficult position, because she is down here pontificating to my constituents in North Wiltshire.
Imagine if the Member of Parliament for North Wiltshire went to Edinburgh and said, "I want to come to the holyrood Parliament and be the Minister for Transport in Scotland. I want to sort out transport in Scotland. I represent North Wiltshire and have nothing to do with Scotland, but I want to pontificate about transport in Scotland." What a fuss there would be from the Labour party if I even suggested that, but that is exactly what has happened the other way round.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) is correct to put me right, so perhaps I should move on to the more meaty substance of the White Paper and the Government's response to the Select Committee's report. Other hon. Members will have something to say about other aspects of transport policy, such as the railways, buses, aircraft and airports, where odd things have been happening recently. I want to concentrate my efforts and remarks on the subject of road transport, which the nation has been most interested in recently.
People have heard the warm words and seen the policy launches—the Green Papers, the White Papers, the Committees and the working parties. The Deputy Prime Minister said that he would sort out transport, but people sit fuming in traffic jams up and down the country. People have seen petrol prices go through the roof: they are now as high as those in any other nation in Europe. Road haulage businesses have gone bust, or have been driven offshore because they cannot afford to pay the vehicle excise duty on their 20-tonne lorries. The road transport system is in the doldrums and in the grip of congestion.
What is the Government's dramatic and interesting new solution to this problem? They propose a variety of taxing proposals: road charging, congestion charging, work place


charging, and the possibility of retail charging—which the Select Committee proposed, although the Government are not in favour of it, so there is a slight divide between them. How well would those charges work? What will happen if there is road pricing and road congestion charging?
Imagine that you are a company executive living in a large house in Surrey. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Riverside corrects my use of the word "you", which I am of course using hypothetically. Imagine that one is a fat cat living in a large mansion in Surrey with a large Rolls-Royce and a chauffeur.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman have sufficient memory banks to recall a Government Green Paper called "Transport: the way forward" published in 1996, which had a long section about road charging? It said that the then Government presumed in favour of road charging. Does he remember that, and does he wish to reflect on it?

Mr. Gray: That has nothing whatever to do with my position. We have always been against extra taxation. In the paper that we published today, we have laid out—[Laughter.] Labour Members laugh, but it is a nervous laughter because they know that they are taxing the motorist off the road. We will not do that, and we are committed to reversing those taxes when we come back into power.
Never mind the party political points that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) tries to make, let us consider for a moment the practicalities of road pricing and road charging. Let us return to our chief executive living in a mansion in Surrey.

Mr. Richard Burden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gray: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have given way quite a lot. [Interruption.] Oh, why not?

Mr. Burden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because it is important that he is aware of his party's policy. All politicians should be aware of their own party's policy. I remind him that the 1996 Green Paper said:
The Government will shortly be starting trials to explore whether it is technologically feasible to introduce electronic tolling on motorways. If these trials are successful, new opportunities will become available for shifting the emphasis of the costs of providing the motorway away from fixed towards marginal charges".
The paper goes on to refer to experiments with road charging, with the presumption in favour of legislation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that, or does he not?

Mr. Gray: The hon. Member for Southampton, Test made precisely the same intervention a moment ago. It is obviously No. 23 on the Labour Whips' list of suggested interventions. The answer is no, I do not agree. Today's policy paper made it perfectly plain that we do not agree, and my press release—which I mentioned earlier, in connection with the Select Committee report—made it plain that we do not agree. We are wholeheartedly opposed to congestion charging, to workplace charging and to retail charging. It is the Labour party that is wholeheartedly committed to taxing the motorist off the

road—but let us leave aside the party political aspect and discuss the practicalities, as I suggested we should a few minutes ago.

Mrs. Liddell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gray: I am pretty keen to get on, but of course I must give way to the right hon. Lady.

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman is developing his theme. Can he tell us how his party intends to make up the shortfall of £10 million that would be a consequence of the document that was published today?

Mr. Gray: I am afraid that I have no intention of doing anything of the sort, for a very simple reason. What we are discussing is the report of the Transport Sub-Committee on an integrated transport policy, and the Government's response to it. That is the purpose of the debate. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) will expand on the point, but it is no part of my business, as a Back Bencher, to do so.
All this party political banter is fine for those who are on the spot, as the Labour party is. I want to talk about some of the practicalities and details of road congestion, retail and workplace parking charging. It is quite interesting to note the way in which such measures will work. I was talking about a fat cat with a house in Surrey and a business in the City. At present—as the Minister for Transport suggests—he is having a terrible time: he cannot get into London because of congestion. So what does he want to do? He wants to tax congestion off the roads. That is not because he wants to get a train to the City; he wants to get rid of all those dreadful plebs.
So what are the Government going to do? They are going to do what the Greater London Authority Bill proposes and levy a £5-a-day congestion charge on those who wish to come into the centre of London. The chief executive of a bank in the City may be quite happy to pay £5 a day to be sure that the roads are clear; to a two-Jags fat cat, £5 a day is nothing. However, the Government are talking about the possibility of a workplace charge of £1,000 a year. Again, to the chairman of a bank in the City £1,000 would be small beer. He would pay far more than that to National Car Parks—£2,000 or £3,000 a year. A first-class ticket from Surrey would cost £4,000 or £5,000 a year, so £1,000 a year is nothing at all. But, my goodness—it would matter to one of my rural constituents, who has to drive an F-registered car to his or her workplace in Chippenham, if he or she had to pay £5 a day to get into Chippenham and £1,000 a year in work place charges. The Minister and other Labour Members, who spend all their time talking about London, the suburbs and the middle classes are not thinking about the people on whom the charges will bear down so heavily. The poor, the low-waged, the rural dwellers and the disabled—those are the people whom the Labour party has cast out in its drive towards new Labour policy.

Mr. Brake: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gray: No.
Those are the people on whom workplace and congestion charges would bear down particularly heavily.
Retail charging is another Labour party proposal. Why not try to persuade out-of-town superstores to charge people to go there? What a strange idea. Eighty per cent. of us use supermarkets and buy a large amount of groceries. Indeed, some 320,000 people go to Safeway in Chippenham each week. So what are we to do? Let us charge them.

Mr. Shaun Woodward: Tax them.

Mr. Gray: That is right. Let us tax them. We cannot have all these people going to supermarkets; let us tax them. First, however, let us ask Safeway to charge them for using its car park. What a nonsense. Retail charging would bring in only 6p per person per year, which will not greatly change behaviour. All this constitutes is a tax on the buyer and a tax on the driver. That is what new Labour is about: tax, tax and tax again.
Labour Members say that the whole point about the charges is that they will be hypothecated. They will be hypothecated for 10 years, of course; no more than that. After 10 years, the funds will go into the Treasury. During the debate on the Greater London Authority, the Minister for Transport in London talked about how important it was that the mayor should have some revenue. The view is, "We will get the mayor some revenue. We will charge the motorist. That will be marvellous. Tax the motorist and pay the money to the mayor."
Britain's roads are at a standstill. Britain's transport is in a shambles. The Labour party is to blame. In its paper, the only solution that it can come up with is a few warm words, a few committees, a few shiny bits of paper and tax, tax and tax again. Today, we have come up with a new document that lays out some vibrant, important, interesting and useful proposals for getting Britain's transport going.

Mr. Brake: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gray: I am just winding up my speech, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

Mr. Brake: On that point.

Mr. Gray: Well, why not?

Mr. Brake: The hon. Gentleman was on the subject of useful points that the Conservative document proposes. Are two of them getting rid of traffic humps and stopping local authorities using traffic calming?

Mr. Gray: No. Of course, those come into the document in a variety of ways, but we talk about removing the fuel duty escalator and getting petrol prices back down to where they should be. We talk about sorting out road freight, which the Government have driven off our roads and on to the continent. We are sorting out the trains and the buses. We are talking about practical and sensible transport policies to get Britain going again.

Mr. Paul Clark: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Gray: I am sorry. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am winding up my speech.
All the Government have done so far is bring Britain to a standstill. Their only solution is to tax the motorist off the road. We take a different view.

Mr. George Stevenson: For 21 minutes, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has tried to convince the House about why he abstained and saw fit not to have the courage of his convictions about the Committee's ninth report on the important issue of integrated transport policy. I have tried to recall how many sittings he attended. I am not sure; perhaps the record will show us. However, we have had 21 minutes of diatribe, with the hon. Gentleman trying to convince us that he feels strongly about these issues. One would have thought that he would have voted against the report. Nevertheless, that is for hon. Members to judge.
The Select Committee's report is important. What is worrying and discouraging is that the Opposition have tried to convince the public that the Government's integrated transport policy is anti-car. Of course, it is no such thing and the Select Committee has made it clear that it believes that it is no such thing. It is pro-transport. There is a big difference.
It is wrong to think that all of us can get in our cars and, particularly in urban areas, use them as we wish—to take our children to school and all the rest of it—without thinking about the effects on the environment, pollution, congestion and all the other issues that we are tremendously concerned about. The notion that those issues can be ignored and that people can simply say, "Government policy is anti-car and the Conservative party is pro-car, so we do not recognise that those things are a problem", seems disingenuous to say the least.
It is important to recognise that this is the first White Paper on integrated transport for some 20 years—that is my understanding from listening to the evidence to the Select Committee. That suggests that the previous Government, despite all the rhetoric and nonsense that Conservative Members come up with, were a little shy of tackling the problem. We could all play politics with the issue. Although I know that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire is quite adept playing politics—but abstains when it comes to voting—I think that he and I could agree that transportation is an extremely important issue.
The Select Committee's report is an extremely important document in the transport debate. Opposition Members who say that the Government's transport policy is anti-car, in an attempt to devalue the Government's policy and the Committee's ninth report, devalue only the Opposition. Particularly in urban areas, even car owners understand that we cannot use our cars as we wish, to go wherever we like. We realise that car use has knock-on effects and that we have to grapple with transport issues. The report identifies those issues. Moreover, as is right and proper, the report does not agree with every Government transport policy.
The public will not accept statements that the Government's policy is anti-car. Moreover, claims that it is simply demean the real arguments. We should not play party politics with the issue simply to make political capital, as the hon. Member for North Wiltshire has tried to do. That will not wash.
If the integrated transport policy is to succeed in the medium to long term—it is a medium to long-term issue—we shall have to promote public transport, which


will entail nothing less than a renaissance of public transportation. The report identifies and addresses that issue—which I accept is a challenge for the Government.
The Government cannot develop and implement an integrated transport policy simply by saying that it will be done. We have not only to develop objectives, but to will and effect their implementation. First, however, we have to ensure that the relevant arguments are identified and made, as the report attempts to do.
We have to ensure also that, particularly in urban areas, more public transportation is provided as other transport measures are implemented. The report rightly identifies that requirement. As the report states, if we say that there will be restrictions—either fiscal or physical, such as bus lanes—on motor car use, but do not provide public transport alternatives, there is a danger that it will be difficult to make the policy a success. The report says not simply that the Government are right in their policy, but, "We think that the Government's objectives are right, but Ministers have to take certain actions to ensure that people have transportation alternatives."
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) mentioned the Manchester area. In my constituency, 3.2 km of motorway have just been built, right through an urban area. At 1992 prices—the previous Government decided to build the motorway—it has cost £40 million per mile. By the time the bills are paid, there will not be much change from £200 million. The experts tell me that, within 10 years, the road will have reached its design capacity—in other words, it will be congested.
The new A50 is designed to replace the old A50, which runs right through Stoke-on-Trent for some 13 miles, north to south. If we do not use this window of opportunity to develop public transport in that area, we shall have two congested roads in 10 or 12 years, and we shall have spent a quarter of a billion pounds on them. If that is the Opposition's transport policy, they should say so.

Mr. Paul Clark: I agree with my hon. Friend. A new bypass has been developed for the Medway towns, and rightly so. Does he agree that, because of the opportunities afforded by the Government to make sure that regional transport plans are developed, we have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to take advantage of these bypasses?

Mr. Stevenson: The Government's policies are not only working, but providing opportunities.
To carry out the policy, resources must be made available, as the Select Committee identified. To ring-fence resources for 10 years and to hypothecate them are important. However, as the Select Committee pointed out, that is putting the cart before the horse. We ought to be providing the resources now, and hypothecating them against future revenue streams.
If we can do that and if we can integrate the Select Committee report into Government policy, we shall have an excellent opportunity—for the first time in perhaps 50 years—to present this country with an integrated transport policy to take us into the 21st century.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is a little disappointing to be winding up on behalf of the Select Committee after such a short debate. It was a

tragedy that the Opposition tried to eke out the first debate to cover up the fact that they had so little interest in the second debate—particularly on a day when they were trying to make policy announcements.
It was disappointing also that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) felt that he had to make a speech of 21 minutes, again to filibuster. Some of us on the Select Committee have felt sorry for the hon. Gentleman, who came on to the Committee at the start of this Parliament and is still there, whereas five of his colleagues have found their way on to the Conservative Front Bench. Following his speech today, I understand why he is still with us on the Select Committee.
I want to put on record my appreciation of Professor Peter Jones, who gave sound advice to the Select Committee, and to Kevin Lee, who worked hard to make sure that the evidence was nicely marshalled. I pay tribute also to all those who gave evidence. Select Committees depend on those people outside who take the time and trouble to give evidence.
We must look back over the previous two years and see what progress we have made on integrated transport. First, there is a recognition by the Government that we must put the environment and transport together. For the past 50 years at least, people have taken travel for granted. The assumption has been that travel is easy and that if one does a little more, it does not matter. We must recognise that it does matter, and that we cannot go on increasing the amount of travel that people do without thinking about it. If we are to integrate transport, the first thing we need is joined-up living. We have to try to ensure that as many people as possible, for as much of the time as possible, can live, work, shop, enjoy their leisure and take their children to school locally, without the need for expensive travel.
If we can get that message across over the next few years, we can make most people's quality of life far better, reducing congestion and pollution and making travel far easier. That point is at the heart of the Government's thinking and of their proposals for integrated transport, and the report emphasises it very strongly: it is the way forward.
We must not only ensure that services are available locally, but encourage people to buy local produce. I am not a great beer drinker, but it strikes me as significant that when I became a Member of Parliament 25 years ago, most of the beer drunk in Greater Manchester was brewed there, whereas most of the alcohol drunk in Manchester today rattles round the country, round Europe or even across the world. Has that choice been worth the extra pollution? Would not it be far better to buy local produce than stuff that has moved all round the world?
I believe firmly in the fuel escalator, and in congestion charging and charging for workplace parking; but if charging is to work, people must see the results at the point at which the charge is made. The Committee considered the example of the Netherlands where, to make the fuel escalator acceptable, income tax went down as the escalator went up. I do not mind what the Government come up with—it could be a reduced television licence for pensioners—but we must have some direct, hypothecated measure to go with the escalator, so that people can see that the tax is designed to change people's behaviour and not simply to raise money for the Treasury.
We must do much more to encourage people to do their own bit. Simply recognising that the speed limit should be enforced by us, and not by external means, would make a huge difference. Experiments on the M25 showed that if people travelled at lower speeds, but managed to retain those speeds throughout the journey, they got there quicker than if they went fast and then slow.
It is crazy to build speed humps in urban areas when, if we could simply persuade people to stay within the 30 mph limit, the roads would be far safer. One of the weaknesses that the Committee identified when it considered integrated transport was the failure to bring the home Office on board and to convince the police that they have a major role in ensuring that transport laws, such as those on bus lanes, are enforced.
I agree strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) that bus lanes and the quality of our bus services are essential to getting people back on to public transport. It is sad that there seems to be a class element that makes some people reluctant to travel on buses; interestingly, Manchester's experience shows that there is no such reluctance to travel on trams. Manchester already has significant metro lines and it would make a huge contribution to solving its transport problems if we could increase that critical mass.
The Select Committee report was good and the Government's response is excellent, but my constituents want to see an improvement in public transport now, not in 10 years' time.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I might spoil the day for the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) by welcoming many of his comments. The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the connection between transport and the environment—a connection that we made in our period in office and emphasised in the 1996 Green Paper. He is also right to talk about the need for joined-up living, and there is much to be commended in Lord Rogers's recent report on the urban renaissance, as he calls it, especially when it comes to ensuring that we build on brown-field sites. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) mentioned that issue, and we share his concern about protecting the environment and creating the critical mass in urban centres so that transport can be efficient and public transport can work effectively.
I also share the view of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish that we should consume more local produce, not less. That means, perhaps controversially, challenging the direction in which supermarkets have taken us. I am a strong supporter, for example, of the new farmers' market in my constituency in Colchester. That is the way that consumers, environmentalists and all of us want to go.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish was being a little more controversial than he realised when he talked about the need for overall fiscal neutrality in the tax changes on fuel, because that is certainly not his Government's policy. I also agree with him about the need to educate people about safety on our roads, especially the need to cut speed. Enforcement and speed humps are not necessarily the instant answer to every dangerous stretch of road.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is also right in emphasising the need for quality public transport. On buses, it is hard to offer that quality, and tram systems, such as the Manchester metrolink—which was built under the Conservative Government—are the right way forward for public transport. We need a proper commitment to public transport as alternatives to the car. Unfortunately, the report, which was co-authored by the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and the rest of the Committee, does not reflect such objectives as dispassionately as they would like.
The report is disappointing. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) about the issue of taxation. It is sad that the Government's policies are characterised by their taxing motorists more and more for less and less benefit to the travelling public than we have ever seen before.
The really disappointing feature of the report is that it is stuck in a time warp. It is fighting the battles of the 1980s, which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich should know she lost. She lost the arguments about bus deregulation and competition, and rail privatisation. The evidence shows that transport investment is increasing in the industries privatised by the Conservative Government, which include airlines, airports, buses and coaches, and the railway—investment in which has doubled since it was privatised. Those areas are seeing investment, growth and success and we can look forward to a better future.

Mr. John Cryer: The hon. Gentleman talked about investment in the railway network. What does he say about the eight railway lines—at least—that face cuts under privatisation?

Mr. Jenkin: I would look at the evidence. Annual investment in the railways has doubled since privatisation. We want that investment to grow, as the railways are not yet good enough. Even Sir Alastair Morton, the rail supremo appointed by the Deputy Prime Minister, has said that it was always going to take 10 years after privatisation to get the railway system working. That view has been endorsed by the Government.
The growth in investment in all the modes of public transport that we privatised contrasts starkly with the catastrophe in the transport system for which the Government are responsible. Investment in the tube system has been slashed, after the Government cancelled the Conservative Government's investment plans. [Interruption.] Labour Members may laugh, but I would not be laughing if I were a tube commuter. I seem to have provoked the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), so I shall let him have a go at intervening.

Mr. Clive Efford: My question is quite simple. Why did the previous Conservative Government cut £320 million from tube investment just before the 1997 election?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman should look at the figures. During the previous Government's last year in office, more than £943 million was invested in the tube. At today's prices, that is equal to more than £1 billion. This Government have halved that investment. The hon. Gentleman may say that the Government inherited the


Conservatives' plans, but our plans were premised on billions of pounds of new investment arising from privatisation. The Government have dithered for more than two years with their dotty public-private partnership. The present shameful closures are a sign that the tube is getting worse under this Government, and if the hon. Gentleman tries to blame it on us he is just shirking his responsibilities.

Mr. Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: No. The hon. Gentleman has been squashed, and that is enough of that.
I say to the Minister that we need more investment in public transport. That investment was secured in the industries that we privatised, but the Government's public-private partnership is a fiasco. The Minister should apologise to the people of London, who suffer every day from worsening congestion. [Interruption.] I can hardly hear myself think for the Minister shouting hysterically at me from a sedentary position.

Madam Speaker: Order. We want no comments from sedentary positions.

Mr. Jenkin: We want investment in public transport and in alternatives to the car. We want there to be more choice so that there are alternatives to the car. However, the most fundamental problems that the Government have failed to address are traffic growth and congestion on our roads.
It is one thing to plan for alternatives to the car 20 years ahead, and to accomplish all the projects that the previous Conservative Government started. Those strands of thinking are evident in the Government's transport White Paper. It is quite another thing, and absolutely daft, simply to deny that traffic growth exists, slash the roads programme and expect the problem to go away. That is what the Government have done, however. Theirs is the most irresponsible and congestion-generating programme that could be conceived. As an act of deliberate policy, the Government have cut the programme of road improvements that would have relieved the congestion.
As we approach the close of the debate, one figure in the Government's estimates needs to be put in context. The Government—supported by a Select Committee which is, I am sorry to say, more concerned about propping up a failing Deputy Prime Minister and a failing Government with a failed transport policy than with its proper task of scrutinising the Executive—are fond of claiming that they are putting extra money into transport. We are told that the Government are putting an extra £1.8 billion into public transport, but we should examine the figures in the comprehensive spending review. That review shows that public spending on transport last year was £4.7 billion. This year it is £4.6 billion, and next year it will be £4.5 billion. The amount is therefore declining—the Government are cutting public transport investment.
That is the Government's policy. They have not only cancelled private investment schemes for the tube and the national air traffic control system—another scandal of which the Minister is in charge: they are cutting investment in those very transport networks that they claim to favour. They claim that public transport is their great priority, but they are taxing road users more and

more. They are planning more and more taxes, so the road user will be fleeced, but less and less will be spent on public transport.
That is the catastrophe that the Government are visiting on the travelling public. The Government know that they should be ashamed of themselves. The Prime Minister knows that he is ashamed of his Deputy Prime Minister.
It is about time that the Minister for Transport, who is to reply, made a constructive contribution to the debate instead of thinking about getting back to Scotland.

The Minister for Transport (Mrs. Helen Liddell): We heard an interesting comment from the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) as he concluded. He seems to think that there is something wrong with hon. Members representing and taking an interest in their constituents. I wonder whether some of my colleagues in Essex might care to draw that to the attention of the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) for her helpful contribution at the beginning of the debate and I also thank her co-Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). The Select Committee has put a considerable amount of work into the report and I commend all members of the Committee for the work that they put in—even those who could only abstain and who could not attend to cast a vote at the appropriate time.
In making that interesting point about the previous Government being on the road to Damascus, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich missed out some of the U-turns that they have been doing on that road, as we saw today. That fact was very much summed up in the speech by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who failed to recognise that the quotations that my hon. Friends were using were from the 1996 Conservative Green Paper. He also failed to recall that devolution means that transport is largely a reserved matter—only a few aspects of transport are devolved.
Let us get away from the collective amnesia of the Opposition this evening. Sometimes, I think that they must belong to some obscure cult where a button is pressed and they completely forget their past.
In many of her arguments, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich underlined the importance that the Government attach to transport, which was sadly neglected by the previous Government. That fact is underlined by the Opposition's statement today. Indeed, they have not explained how they would meet the £10 billion shortfall that has been exposed in their plans today.

Mr. Jenkin: rose—

Mrs. Liddell: I am sorry, I only have a limited time.

Mr. Jenkin: rose—

Mrs. Liddell: All right, I cannot resist the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. She has just given the game away. The Government are going


to raise an extra £10 billion from the hard-pressed motorist, over and above what a Conservative Government would endeavour to raise. That is clear blue water between her policy and mine and I am proud of it.

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman obviously has a bad attack of collective amnesia again. He is forgetting who introduced the fuel duty escalator.
Under this Government, we have seen 1,000 more train services every day, 16 new train stations, 70 new freight terminals and 1,500 new and enhanced bus services in rural areas. Bus investment is 80 per cent. Higher than it was five years ago and rail investment is 33 per cent. Higher than two years ago. We have also seen 37 new road schemes—including real bypasses—rather than the fantasy wish list that we got from the previous Government.
Some important points were made during the debate.

Mrs. Laing: rose—

Mrs. Liddell: I am sorry, but I am under pressure of time and I want to answer some of the questions posed during the debate, so I will not give way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich asked about security and enforcement on the public transport network, which the Government take very seriously. Indeed, we referred to it in our response to the report, both with the secure stations initiatives and also in our desire for much greater interchangeability, co-operation and co-ordination between all modes of transport—that extends to enforcement, too.
We have also issued guidelines for operators about personal security on public transport which offer advice on the role of staff. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich would accept that exact staffing levels are a matter for the individual companies. We are also providing £150 million over three years for closed circuit television and the infrastructure to enable it to operate successfully. This year, we shall commission research into improving personal security at bus stops and bus stations. That is very important to the travelling public, who understandably want a journey that is not only pleasant but safe.
My hon. Friend was very scathing, as she always is, in her remarks about Railtrack. She is aware that the Government share her view and the Committee's caution about Railtrack's 1999 network management statement. She referred to the establishment of the Strategic Rail Authority and the change that it will make to the fragmentation of the railway caused by the haphazard and ill-thought-out privatisation by the previous Government. We already have evidence from the National Audit Office which demonstrates what a giveaway Railtrack privatisation was.
We shall expect the new regulator, which will have new powers, to take appropriate action to ensure that Railtrack complies with all its obligations. That will be a considerable improvement, and we look forward to seeing the shadow Strategic Rail Authority—followed by the actual authority, when it is formally underpinned by statute—being able to implement more significant regulatory powers.
There is a sense of urgency in the Government about transport because it is a quality-of-life issue that affects the vast majority of people in this country. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich is proud of the report; she has every reason to be proud.
Several points have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) referred to the increase in asthma in the population. I thought it was interesting that the document published by the Conservative party made little reference to the impact on the environment of pollution. Each year, 23,000 people die prematurely from diseases that are directly related to pollution. Is it not interesting that one of the proposals in the Conservative party's document is to remove vehicle excise duty on cars that are more than 25 years old? Those are the very cars that cause the most pollution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) made several points, particularly about the Manchester metro. I am very interested in its development, and I look forward to further proposals for its extension. He also talked about the bus industry. I reiterate how anxious the Government are that there should be quality partnerships, leading to quality contracts that are underpinned to ensure that the general public get the best possible deal from the bus network. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the bus system must not become one that is used only by the poor. It is a key aspect of ensuring that we have an integrated, effective transport policy.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire seemed, as usual, to be exhibiting his split personality. I was saddened by the snobbishness that he displayed about the Deputy Prime Minister. After all, the hon. Gentleman was a maritime broker who had never been on board a ship. As a son of the manse, it illbefits him to be so snobbish and to espouse the politics of envy, as he has done tonight. He pointedly has not listened to the proposals that the Government are developing.
This has been an interesting debate on a detailed report in response to the integrated transport White Paper. The Government have made a commitment to work in partnership to promote an integrated transport policy. I commend those who took part in the discussions and I look forward to the implementation of that policy by a Government who believe in integrated transport, public transport and a fair deal for the motorist.
It being Ten o' clock, MADAM SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Questions which she was directed by paragraphs (4) and (5) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates) to put at that hour.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1999–2000

Class I, Vote 4

Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £59,500,000 be granted to her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 2000 for expenditure by the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England on administration and inspection, including the inspection of schools and other educational institutions, funded nursery providers and local education authorities.

Class III

Resolved,
That a further revised sum not exceeding £25,917,026,000 be granted to her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 2000 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

It being after Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question required to be put by Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, etc.).

ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1999–2000

Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £97,900,070,000 be granted to her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 2000, as set out in HC336, 337, 338, 520 and 684.

Ordered,
That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Alan Milburn, Dawn Primarolo, Mrs. Barbara Roche and Ms Patricia hewitt do prepare and bring it in.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (No. 2) BILL

Mrs. Barbara Roche accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1999 and 2000: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 135.]

FOOD STANDARDS BILL [Ways and Means]

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(b),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Food Standards Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. James Paice: I am sorry that the Government chose to move the motion formally.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has kindly written to me and the rest of the members of the Committee considering the Food Standards Bill to explain a series of amendments and a new clause that he has tabled, and which have given rise to the need for this Ways and Means motion.
I hope that the Minister will tell us some of the reasons why we are facing such a shambles in the financial aspects of the Bill. We are talking about very large sums of money—close to £300 million. Most of it, we have always been told, was to be met by the taxpayer. The £90 per business levy was to raise £41 million. We have said before and we say again that we very much welcome the Government's back-down as a result of the widespread anger at the imposition of that charge. The Minister and the Department have had to eat humble pie.
On 22 April, the Minister said:
We seek an accommodation and a method of charging that is seen to be fair and acceptable to the industry and to the wider public … some new money must be raised, otherwise there will be no Food Standards Agency. The question is how we collect that extra money"—[Official Report, 22 April 1999; Vol. 329. c. 1037–38.]
On 20 May, he said:
Unless the levy raises some £40 million we will not have a Food Standards Agency. Therefore, we have to raise that sum".—[Official Report, 20 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 1206.]
We have seen how the Government have had to back down—they are not raising that money, they are taking it, too, from central public expenditure. Of course, that was not the first time the Minister has found that speaking straight, for which he is renowned and for which we normally show our appreciation, causes him some difficulty.
After Second Reading, there was a money resolution. Now that the Bill has been in Committee for two weeks, the Minister proposes to remove an entire clause that deals with the financial basis of the Bill and to replace it with another, which has given rise to the need for this motion.
The justification for that shambles, given in the letter that the Minister has sent to the Committee, is:
we are entering into new territory post-devolution".
Well, any witness to the Committee's proceedings will understand that. There is total and absolute confusion over the impact of devolution on the Food Standards Agency relating to the issues of accountability, advice and ministerial power.
However, devolution was legislated for a year ago. The White Paper was produced about 18 months ago. The draft Bill appeared six months ago, yet now, near the end of the Committee's consideration of the Bill, we are being asked to pass a Ways and Means resolution to sort out yet

another bit of shambles because a few weeks ago, when the Government introduced the Bill, they could not sort out what the financial implications of devolution were going to be.
Now we are told in the Minister's letter to us all—an amazing couple of sentences—that part of the amended provisions
does not however require
the devolved Administrations
to pay money to the Agency … though if they fail to pay an appropriate share, there are arrangements in the devolution Acts whereby the Treasury could recover money from them to make up the short-fall.
Advocates of devolution and those who believe, for example, that the powers of the Food Standards Agency in Scotland now fall to the Scottish Parliament would be very surprised to read that they are going to pay for the agency, like it or not.
Before the Opposition help the Minister out of his muddle, I hope that he can give us some answers. It appears from his letter to us that the Scottish, Welsh and national insurance moneys will effectively be top-sliced off the amount of money going to those authorities. That is the opposite of devolution. But if that is the case, what will happen about England? how much money will come from England and how much will come from Scotland, from Wales and from Northern Ireland? Will the amount of money that each pays be calculated on a per capita basis? If not, how does the Minister justify any alternative approach to dividing the money?
Where is the English money coming from—not just the large sum that is already allowed for in public expenditure, but the extra £41 million that was due to come from the levy? What will be the impact on the planned spending limits for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of health? Now that the agency is to be funded directly from the Treasury, can the Minister assure the House that neither MAFF nor the Department of health is to have its plans cut in order to find the money? Do the £1.207 billion allocated to MAFF next year and the £43.271 billion allocated to health still stand? Or are we going to find those sums cut in order to pay that money? How many of our hospitals may go unbuilt or how many operations may not be carried out in order to find that money? The House deserves to know where the Government are finding that money.
We already know that ministerial largesse—or, indeed, extravagance—means that cuts will be made elsewhere. Very recently, the ever rising cost of the BSE inquiry led to cuts in research and the grants to various aspects of the fishing industry.
Equally, the Minister should explain what the impact would be if Scotland decided to go it alone. He has told us in Committee that the Scots and the Welsh have debated the matter and accepted that the agency is to be a UK-wide agency. That is fine. But part of devolution means that—as I am sure the Minister will accept—they could decide to change their mind at some stage. When they took those decisions recently, were they told what the cost to them would be? If they were, why is not the House being told? Will we be told tonight?
If the Scots and the Welsh change their mind, what will happen about the money? If Scotland, for example, decides to take back all the devolved powers relating to


food safety and food standards, will it automatically be reimbursed the money that it would have paid? If it is not being charged on a per capita basis, does that mean that England will be left carrying a bigger share, or perhaps a lesser share?
The Minister has so far avoided answering a series of questions, partly by trying to get the motion through on the nod. These are important questions to which the House deserves answers. I hope that this evening the Minister will take the opportunity to give us accurate answers to all the points that I have raised. We shall feel able to support the Government only if that is what happens.

Mr. James Gray: Like my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), I have real concerns about the Bill's financial implications. It is right that we should have the opportunity this evening of scrutinising what the Government have done.
We join the Government in welcoming both the Food Standards Agency in itself and the principle that lies behind it. We believe that it is right that its main objective should be protecting the public from food risks. However, the initial decision to impose a flat-rate charge to fund the agency was ridiculous. It is only right that it should have been dropped, thanks, to a large degree, to pressure from the Opposition. The thought that small shops should be penalised for the hefty annual levy was unsustainable. I am amazed that the Government came up with the notion in the first place, and I am delighted that they have been persuaded to drop it.
We were to have an agency that would be part funded by the very people on whom the agency might later pass judgment. That would have undermined its integrity. I congratulate my Front-Bench colleagues on having pointed out the difficulties. They initiated a petition, raised a popular move against that way of funding the agency, and persuaded the Government to fund it out of taxation.
Despite the removal of the fundamental problem with the way the agency was to be funded, I have three fundamental concerns about the financial aspects of the agency. There may be—I use "may" carefully—a worrying conflict when it comes to the funding of the Labour party by sectors within the food and drink industry. After all, the agency will regulate those very sectors, and the people within them may be making substantial contributions to the Government party.
When the Minister replies, I hope that she will tell us whether some sort of register of interests will be set up for the FSA, declaring who is making contributions to the Labour party among those whom it is attempting to regulate—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a long way from the motion. His remarks are interesting, but I would be grateful if he would confine himself to the motion.

Mr. Gray: I shall do so, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will. I am following his remarks very carefully. I have allowed him a great deal of latitude but he must now contain himself.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for your latitude. There were important points to make, but I accept what you have said.
The most fundamental and central worry about the financial aspects of the Bill concerns devolution. If the Scots want to run their own food policy, fine. It is up to them. However, surely it is only right that they should pay for it. Why should English taxpayers subsidise a Scottish Parliament that is able to alter the advice of the Food Standards Agency? Visitors to Scotland will potentially be eating food that has not been prepared in the same way or to the same high standard as food that they would expect to eat south of the border—I am not referring only to haggis.
We are all well aware of the Scottish Parliament's tax-raising powers. If the Government are to insist on devolution when it comes to FSA advice, and if it is right that the Scottish Parliament should be given the right to ignore and breach the principle of the agency's being a UK body, let the Scottish Parliament raise its own funds to pay for that Scottish advice.
As so often when it comes to devolution, the Government's approach is entirely inconsistent. It is extraordinary that they are proposing to set up advisory committees for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland, but not for England. That is odd. The Linlithgow question raises its ugly head time and time again when it comes to devolution. Here we have it with the Food Standards Agency. Why should there be advisory committees for the three other nations but not one for England? If the Food Standards Agency is to be set up simply as an advisory committee for England, the Minister must say so tonight and end the pretence that there is to be a single UK body.
Why should the English taxpayer be expected to foot the bill for setting up all those committees, when none of them will be accountable to this Parliament? Why should my constituents in North Wiltshire pay for the Scottish advisory committee, when that committee will not be accountable to them through me, their representative in Parliament, or my fellow English Members of Parliament?
If we are to have an annual debate in Parliament on the annual report of the Food Standards Agency, who will answer for the Government and who will be responsible for the agency as a nationwide body? No one. The Minister will be able to answer only for the agency and its work in England. There is a substantial anomaly which I hope that the Minister will deal with when he winds up the debate.
My third concern about the agency serves as a word of warning for business in a wider sense. The Institute of Directors reported today that the Government have already cost British businesses at least £5 billion. Although I welcome the fact that the agency will be funded out of general taxation, I hope that the Chancellor will not be able to change his mind about that in future. It is important that the Minister should confirm that the method of funding the agency is now set in stone, and that at no stage in the future may the Chancellor once again introduce a levy on business. Furthermore, I hope that the Food Standards Agency will not go on to increase costs unreasonably for those involved in food production, on whom there is already a heavy burden.
The Government's natural inclination seems to be to introduce taxes by stealth. I am glad that we persuaded them to drop the stealth tax on corner shops and food retailers. None the less, the Bill has many financial implications that worry the Opposition considerably.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I support the questions posed by my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray).
The resolution before the House is somewhat unexpected. On 21 June, the House passed a money resolution couched in the ordinary terms, which provided the necessary parliamentary cover for the expenditure incurred by the agency under the Bill, should it be enacted, and also provided cover for expenditure incurred by Ministers under the Bill, should it be enacted. Now we face a Ways and Means resolution which provides for the cover necessary to pay money into the Consolidated Fund.
Therefore, my first question to the Minister is why, at this late stage of the Bill's passage through the House, it is necessary for the House to be asked to pass a Ways and Means resolution, when apparently it was not necessary to pass a Ways and Means resolution at the time of or before the money resolution. The relationship between the money resolution and the Ways and Means resolution needs to be clarified. Why are we being asked to pass a Ways and Means resolution tonight?
I understand, because of course I had consultations before the debate, that this has something to do with new clause 8. All right. I have read new clause 8. The House will expect the Minister to tell us why new clause 8 is triggering a Ways and Means resolution. What is it about new clause 8 that triggers a Ways and Means resolution? I do not understand.
I shall be interested to know, too, why late in the day and in Committee, new clause 8 was tabled when, so far as I can see, there was a perfectly serviceable clause 39. One of the questions that we expect the Minister to answer is why new clause 8 has been tabled now, when we had a perfectly serviceable clause 39, which has been taken out of the Bill. Why?
That leads us to the question set out by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire regarding money. We have asked why; now I want to ask where the money is coming from and how much.
Where is the money coming from? I expect the Minister to tell the House in detail and in respect of each head of expenditure—to which, Madam Speaker, I shall come in a moment—whether it is additional money or existing money within programmes that is being transferred over. If the latter, am I right in supposing that there will be a public expenditure survey transfer? The House is entitled to an answer on that matter.
Critical to all that—a point that was made by my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire and for North Wiltshire—is how much money is involved. A useful guide to that difficult calculation is to be found in the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 21 June. At that stage, he itemised the agency's functions and I have nothing against them. I would have skinned the cat in a slightly different way, but I am perfectly willing to accept that he has a perfectly good case in favour of the Food Standards Agency.
I have nothing against the agency, but I should like to know how much each of its functions will cost. That is pure curiosity—parliamentary control, it is called—but when I read Hansard I find no estimate of any kind of how much it will cost. That is lamentable. Indeed, the

money resolution was taken on the nod, without Ministers vouchsafing an assessment of cost, so this is the opportunity for those on the Treasury Bench to tell us how much. I recommend the Minister to follow me as we go through the functions, because each head of expenditure deserves to be separately costed.
In the third paragraph of column 787, we find the Minister setting out the appointments, the creation of the board, the payment of board members and the necessary infrastructure. How much will that cost, pray? Is new money involved or will the money come from an existing programme? Will there be a PES transfer? At the bottom of column 787 one finds the bald statement:
The agency's functions lie at the core of the Bill.
Indeed they do. We find that those
functions will include drafting and making recommendations on legislation, negotiating in the European Union and internationally on behalf of Ministers
and so forth. How much will that cost, please? Will the money come from the existing programme or not?
At the bottom of column 788, the Minister said:
The agency will provide effective advice to those who prepare and sell food.
I am jolly glad that the advice will be effective rather than ineffective, but we are entitled to know how much that will cost and whether the money will come from the existing programme spend or not. In column 789, he said:
The FSA is an enforcing agency".
That is normally a fairly expensive business and we want to know how much that enforcement will cost. I imagine that the cost will be fairly considerable, or the thing is not worth doing in the first place. How much money is involved and where will it come from? The House is entitled to know.
Half way down column 790, I find that the
entire Meat Hygiene Service is being transferred to the agency.
That will be a whacking great cost—how much? Where will the money come from? Will there be a PES transfer? At the top of column 791, I find that the Minister said that he wanted to
draw attention to the significant budget that the agency will have for commissioning and carrying out its own research and surveillance.
That was very good of him, but he did not quantify the budget or tell us how much it was. He merely said that the agency will have a budget. I should like to know how much it will be. I find in column 792 that the Bill
provides for the agency to operate throughout the food chain
and that it will
have an input into other farm-related decisions that affect food safety."—[Official Report, 21 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 787–92.]
That sounds pretty expensive to me. Again, we are entitled to know how much.
I am pleased to let the Minister off the hook at this point. I understand that the Bill provides the basis for the agency to publish its advice and information to Ministers, and so forth.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Given my right hon. and learned Friend's experience of procedure in the house, will he tell the House whether it is normal to table a Ways and Means motion in respect of a new clause that has not even been put to the relevant Committee?


I understand that the new clause was tabled on Friday and the Committee will have its first opportunity to debate it tomorrow.

Mr. Hogg: To be fair to the Government, if it were necessary for them to table new clause 8, and if it is fundamentally different from clause 39, in all probability it is necessary, in procedural terms, to come forward with a Ways and Means motion—otherwise, to be honest, they would not be doing so.
The central question is, why have the Government got themselves into such a mess in the first place? What is it about new clause 8 that is so successful and attractive that clause 39 becomes irrelevant and should be disposed of? That is the key question, which we want the Minister to answer.
I am conscious that you, Madam Speaker, would not want me to rabbit on at this late hour and that many other hon. Members want to speak. It is very important that the Minister gives us a comprehensive answer and we look forward to hearing what he has to say.

Dr. Peter Brand: I do not want to prolong this debate, because it is getting late.

Dr. Julian Lewis: We have all night.

Dr. Brand: The hon. Gentleman may have all night.
It is important to put on record that the Liberal Democrats support the Food Standards Agency, which is being set up to protect the public. The public have the right to have the agency funded out of public funds rather than, as has been suggested, by a levy. I am pleased that the Government have got into a bit of a muddle and that this has not all been pre-scripted, because it shows that there has been some flexibility on their part and that they have listened to some of the points that have been made, not only in the Chamber, but in Committee.
If we want the agency to be successful—if anything, I am worried that it is underfunded, rather than overfunded—we must vote the means for it. We shall therefore support the ways and means motion.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): In the time available, I shall do my best to answer some of the questions that have been asked. However, virtually all the questions asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) are, as he well knows, answered by documents available from the Vote Office and have been no secret whatever. To take his point about research, the figure has not changed since we published the White Paper in January 1998. It is approximately £25 million. It is not new money, it is the existing spend transferred to the agency. Indeed, that is the case with most of the money involved.
I want to put on the record, for hon. Members who are naturally suspicious of the Government, that this is not a back-door method of raising new money. It is not even a front-door method, because it is not new money. Neither is it in any way, shape or form a system for raising a new

charge or a levy in disguise. The Ways and Means motion is purely a technical requirement, arising out of the amendment to the Bill. I shall explain why the amendment is required.
We must ensure that the financial provisions in the Bill correctly reflect the post-devolution position, which was not possible to plan and forecast. Thus the amendment does nothing new to the Bill. It does not change the policy, which we set out after several rounds of consultation. It introduces no new charges or new powers to charge. That is clearly and specifically spelt out. It puts right some technicalities, which were not quite right in the Bill simply because of the new devolution arrangements.
We made it clear in the White Paper from the outset that we wanted the Food Standards Agency to be a United Kingdom body in a devolved context. That makes sense, because it is clearly better, more efficient and in the interests of consumers and business to have consistent advice on food safety and standards across the UK. Food safety is a devolved matter: the House decided that when it agreed to devolution last year. We built into the Bill the necessary arrangements for ensuring that the agency will be accountable to the devolved authorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and to the UK Government and this Parliament, while remaining a UK body.
We have made no secret of the fact that the devolved authorities will retain their freedom to legislate differently if they wish. It is ultimately for them to decide, according to local circumstances. They will all obtain advice from a common source: the agency. The agency will be the shared responsibility of the four devolved authorities and the House. That policy was endorsed by the new Scottish Parliament, to the best of my knowledge with the votes and support of its Conservative Members.

Mr. Eric Forth: So what?

Mr. Rooker: I am merely making the point. It was also endorsed by the National Assembly for Wales.

Mr. Paice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rooker: No, I shall not give way because I want to get this on the record.
Members of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales recognise the advantages of proceeding on a common basis. It is ironic that the first decision of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament was to create a UK body. They did so freely, knowing the circumstances and recognising the positive advantages. However, we do not take their continued participation for granted, so there are provisions in the Bill to deal with the consequences should either Scotland or Northern Ireland decide in future to exercise their legal right to withdraw and have separate arrangements. I do not think that that is likely. We have established excellent working relations, and they are a model of how we should continue with our common interests under devolution.
We must recognise the fact that we have a devolved system of government. We need to ensure that the financial arrangements for a UK body in a devolved area work properly. That is the reason for the amendment, which is the subject of the motion.

Mr. Paice: rose—

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Rooker: I shall give way to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) in a moment.
It is proposed that the agency will be funded not only by moneys voted by Parliament, but by moneys provided by the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly, when or if it takes its powers, and granted by the National Assembly for Wales. That is only right and proper, as this is a devolved matter and there must be local accountability. In practice, the costs of the agency's main headquarters in London and its activities in England will be met by money provided by Parliament, and the cost of its executive bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and of activities carried out on the ground in those parts of the UK will, generally speaking, be funded by those devolved authorities.
There will be separate votes before the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and grant aid from the National Assembly for Wales. There will be a separate vote in this Parliament, because as a non-ministerial Department it will have its own vote. No one will be able to claim to have been short-changed by any present or future Secretary of State for health: everyone will know exactly what the vote is.
The agency must be able to account separately to those bodies. This is a new and unusual arrangement. We are in the early days of devolution, and this is the first time that a UK body has been set up to deal with a devolved matter. The traditional financial provisions that we are used to seeing in Bills do not deal with the interests of other legislatures when Parliament legislates on an area for which policy responsibility is devolved. We have had to be careful to ensure that all the elements of the picture fit together. It has taken a certain amount of head scratching. The Bill has been examined to see whether we need a Ways and Means motion and whether payments should go into the Consolidated Fund.
Parliamentary draftsmen and others, along with various bodies, have tried to produce legislation that is workable and practical, while also drawing clear lines of accountability in regard to the flow of money. That is why we wish to remove clause 39, and have tabled an amendment.
The amendment to the financial provisions includes the traditional provision to authorise payments by Parliament, but also expressly provides for sums to be paid by the National Assembly for Wales, from the Scottish Consolidated Fund, or by the Northern Ireland Assembly. That was implicit in our original proposal; it is now explicit, and it could be said that it is because of the explicit nature of the reference to the Consolidated Fund that this motion is required.

Mr. Paice: I thank the Minister for his helpful explanation. It is a pity that the Government have sought to avoid giving such explanations.
If I understood him rightly, the Minister said that the headquarters would be paid for from the vote in this Parliament. The headquarters, however, will affect the whole agency, not just the bit in England. Am I right in concluding that the other authorities will not bear their share of the cost?
The Minister has explained that there will be separate votes by different authorities. Can he put some figures on that, and tell us how much is likely to be voted for the first year by the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly? The Minister referred to the decision to make the agency a UK body. Did the votes in those authorities take place in the absence of any knowledge of what the costs would be?

Mr. Rooker: We do not have the agency now. It will effectively be operated by two Departments—mainly by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but with a substantial input from the Department of health.
When MAFF is in the lead on a GB-wide issue—at present, I say GB rather than UK—MAFF will pay. There will be no flow of money across the borders. In other cases, decisions will be taken separately in Scotland. It is a question of splitting up some of the areas of responsibility and policy initiative that are currently on a GB basis, so that they can be put together on a UK basis in a devolved area, and, when the appropriate time comes, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can see what is happening to the money.
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire asked about the headquarters. The money for the UK headquarters, and for activities in England, will come from the vote in the House of Commons. That does not mean that—in the rather juvenile words of an Opposition Member—the English are paying for the Scots' work. Let us raise the debate to a more adult level. There must be practical considerations, because there is only one central headquarters. That is stated in the White Paper. The Philip James report, on which the whole edifice is constructed, suggested that the national headquarters should be here in central London so that the agency was not marginalised from the rest of Whitehall. Moreover, agency staff will be responsible for negotiations in Brussels, drafting legislation and other such matters.
The vote will be split up, but it will be done in the way that I have described. The work in England, in the national headquarters, will be paid for from the vote in this Parliament, while the work in other areas will be paid for from the votes of the bodies involved. It is important for there to be a degree of accountability.
The arrangement must deal with the receipts of the agency, which is why the motion is required. The agency is likely to have two types of receipt. It will have the statutory receipts from any charges made under existing legislation—no new charges—of which receipts from the Meat Hygiene Service will be the major component, because it will be a sub-agency of the Food Standards Agency. However, the agency may have other minor receipts from fees for its services—the copying of documents and, occasionally, consultancy fees for giving information to certain bodies, as arranged in one of the clauses. Those minor receipts could be other income that it receives as a result of exploiting intellectual property rights.
Under existing legislation, those receipts would normally be paid into the Consolidated Fund. There is no need for the Bill to say that explicitly, but, as some of the agency's expenditure is to be met by the devolved authorities in the way that I have explained, there has to be provision for receipts to be paid to them as appropriate.
In the case of the non-statutory receipts—intellectual property rights, fees for consultancy or copying of documents—the Bill will provide a mechanism for the Treasury, acting jointly with the devolved authorities, to determine whether sums should be paid into the Consolidated Fund, the Scottish Consolidated Fund, the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland or, indeed, to the National Assembly for Wales.
For the avoidance of doubt, before anyone says, "Where is the English Consolidated Fund?", I specifically listed the Consolidated Fund, which we all know and love so well—that is, this one—the Scottish Consolidated Fund, the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland and the National Assembly for Wales. The statement in the amendment that sums are to be paid into the Consolidated Fund means that the motion is necessary, even though, in practice, it does not alter what would happen under the Bill as presently drafted. The same arrangements will take place. It is simply because of the declaration and the reference to the Consolidated Fund that we need the motion.

Mr. Gill: What we have just heard amounts to a reason why the Ways and Means motion has been introduced, but it does not amount to an excuse for the Government having failed to anticipate that complications would arise from devolution, which they might have thought about.
The Minister has been keen that the Bill should reach the statute book. It has been his baby. I am amazed—I think that the whole House is—that he has not delayed a little longer to get it right, rather than come back in the middle of the Committee stage with such a motion for the reason that he has given, which, I repeat, is not an excuse for the Government having got themselves into such a mess. Before he responds to that question, may I remind him that he has not yet answered the questions from several of my colleagues about the actual costs of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan haselhurst): Order. With so little time left, that was far too long an intervention.

Mr. Rooker: We made it clear in the White Paper published in January 1998, in the draft Bill and in notes on clauses in January 1999—it was explicitly pointed out in the draft Bill and notes on clauses, which were scrutinised by a Special Select Committee—that the arrangements for devolution were not clear and could not be clear until much later, because the timetable had changed.
When the White Paper was drafted and published in January 1998, there was an expectation that we would be able to introduce the Bill for draft consideration last summer. That did not prove possible. In the meantime, the elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly came and went and the bodies have been legitimately set up, so the action is right. We knew that there would be changes.
If hon. Members think that it is the last time that a Bill will come to the House that needs tweaking in Committee—which is what I thought the Committee stage was all about—to get it right and to take account of the new arrangements for devolution, they are living in cloud cuckoo land. It was the first occasion. There are bound to be many others, but that is the whole point of the exercise: to get it right in Committee and on Report, so that we do not give all the barristers and slick lawyers, who occasionally parade as hon. Members, the chance to earn a shilling or two.
I emphasise again that the amendment does not change anything in practice. There is no question of it providing any new way of raising any new money. I have said that several times, so it cannot be misrepeated or misquoted either in Committee in the morning or in any of the Sunday journals that follow our proceedings so closely. The amendment will simply make technical changes that are necessary not only to uphold in legislation the traditions of the house, but—although some hon. Members may not like it—to adapt to the new requirements of operating in a devolved context, which is what we must do.
As for demands for information on costs, charges and new money, with all due respect I say that the debate on this motion is not the appropriate time to debate those issues. All the figures were given in the consultation paper on the levy proposal—which we have dropped. Although there is still a need for new money, it will come from the Government. We shall not rob the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the money—it does not have any money anyway. The decision was taken that central Government would provide the extra money.
All the moneys, other than that extra money, will be provided for in current central Government public expenditure. However, as I have tried to explain, in relation to MAFF and the Department of health that money is sometimes expressed as Great Britain money, which—in the context of devolution, as a national United Kingdom agency will be working in a devolved sphere—must be identified.
In the morning, I shall do my best to explain to Committee members the amendment that has given rise to the motion. I invite hon. Members who are not Committee members to come to tomorrow's sitting and sit in the Public so that they might be better educated on the matter.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 223, Noes 2.

Division No. 232]
[10.46 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Benn, Rt hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Alexander, Douglas
Bennett, Andrew F


Allen, Graham
Benton, Joe


Atkins, Charlotte
Bermingham, Gerald


Austin, John
Best, harold


Barnes, harry
Blackman, Liz


Barron, Kevin
Blizzard, Bob


Battle, John
Boateng, Paul


Bayley, hugh
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Begg, Miss Anne
Brand, Dr Peter


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Brinton, Mrs Helen






Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Illsley, Eric


Browne, Desmond
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Burden, Richard
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Jamieson, David


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Jenkins, Brian


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies(NE Fife)
Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)


Caplin, Ivor
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Caton, Martin
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Cawsey, Ian
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Chaytor, David



Chisholm, Malcolm
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Clapham, Michael
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Kemp, Fraser


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Khabra, Piara S


Clelland, David
Kilfoyle, Peter


Coaker, Vernon
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Kirkwood, Archy


Cotter, Brian
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Cousins, Jim
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Cox, Tom
Laxton, Bob


Crausby, David
Leslie, Christopher


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Levitt, Tom


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Llwyd, Elfyn


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
McAvoy, Thomas


Dalyell, Tam
McCabe, Steve


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)



Dawson, Hilton
McDonagh, Siobhain


Dean, Mrs Janet
Macdonald, Calum


Dobbin, Jim
McDonnell, John


Donohoe, Brian H
McFall, John


Doran, Frank
McIsaac, Shona


Dowd, Jim
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Drew, David
Mackinlay, Andrew


Drown, Ms Julia
McNamara, Kevin


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McNulty, Tony


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McWalter, Tony


Efford, Clive
McWilliam, John


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Mallaber, Judy


Ennis, Jeff
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Etherington, Bill
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Flint, Caroline
Martlew, Eric


Flynn, Paul
Maxton, John


Foulkes, George
Meale, Alan


Fyfe, Maria
Merron, Gillian


Gardiner, Barry
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gibson, Dr Ian
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mudie, George


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mullin, Chris


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Grogan, John
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hain, Peter
Norris, Dan


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Olner, Bill


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Öpik, Lembit


Hanson, David
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Palmer, Dr Nick


Healey, John
Pearson, Ian


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Pendry, Tom


Hepburn, Stephen
Pickthall, Colin


Heppell, John
Pike, Peter L


Hesford, Stephen
Plaskitt, James


Hopkins, Kelvin
Pope, Greg


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Purchase, Ken


Humble, Mrs Joan
Quinn, Lawrie


Hutton, John
Rammell, Bill


Iddon, Dr Brian
Raynsford, Nick





Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)



Roche, Mrs Barbara
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rooker, Jeff
Temple-Morris, Peter


Roy, Frank
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Ruane, Chris
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ruddock, Joan
Tipping, Paddy


Sanders, Adrian
Todd, Mark


Sarwar, Mohammad
Touhig, Don


Savidge, Malcolm
Trickett, Jon


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Singh, Marsha
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Skinner, Dennis
Tyler, Paul


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wareing, Robert N



Watts, David


Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wills, Michael


Spellar, John
Winnick, David


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wise, Audrey


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wood, Mike


Stevenson, George
Worthington, Tony


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin



Stringer, Graham
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Mr. Clive Betts and


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Mr. Robert Ainsworth




NOES



Tellers for the Noes:


Swayne, Desmond
Mr. Douglas Hogg and


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Mr. Christopher Gill

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Food Standards Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.

NORTHERN IRELAND BILL

Ordered,
That, in respect of the Northern Ireland Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Mike Hall]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 15th July,
(1) any Message received from the Lords relating to the Northern Ireland Bill may be considered, though opposed, at any hour; and
(2) the House shall not adjourn until the Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both houses.—[Mr. Mike Hall]

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Friday 16th July, proceedings on the Motion for the adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister may continue for up to five hours and may be proceeded with, though opposed, after half-past Two o'clock, and in calculating that period of five hours, the time taken by any interruption of the proceedings under paragraph 4 of Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings) shall be disregarded.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question proposed,

FOOD SAFETY

That the Food Safety (Fishery Products and Live Shellfish) (hygiene) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 1585) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

Hon. Members: Object.
Motion made, and Question proposed,

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

That the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 1627) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

Hon. Members: Object.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the National Health Service (General Medical Services) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 1620) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION

Medicines Control Agency

Mr. Eric Illsley: It is my pleasure to present a petition organised by Consumers for Health Choice, the Health Food Manufacturers Association, the National Association of Health Stores and others. The petitioners are constituents of mine who attended Holland and Barrett health food shops.
The petition declares:
Government proposals would give the Medicines Control Agency virtually unlimited powers to classify safe products as medicines. This would mean that the Medicines Control Agency could remove at a stroke products that are vital to the good health of many consumers and are currently sold under food law. This is an abuse of the democratic process and a denial of freedom of choice.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Department of health to reconsider its proposals and to introduce an immediate moratorium preventing the Medicines Control Agency from declaring these safe products to be medicines except on the grounds of illegal claims or safety, and, further, to introduce new legislation appropriate to the special needs of safe, natural health products.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Student Unions

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Dr. Julian Lewis: I am grateful for the support of my honourable—my very honourable—Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). I am delighted to see that this important debate has attracted the attendance of some Government Back Benchers, too.
As I have already advised the Minister's office, I want to talk about three topics. The first is the way in which student union officers should be democratically elected and, if appropriate, removed from office. The second is the way in which independent assessors should be appointed to investigate grievances against student unions by their members and should conduct themselves with regard to the complainant, the union and the university. The third is the method by which failures by student unions to observe the law, or by the university to see to it that they do, can be challenged successfully by students themselves.
In that connection, I thank the Clerks of the Table Office, who have guided me through a difficult constitutional problem in bringing this debate before the House. I fully acknowledge—as they have pointed out—that the Minister does not have responsibility for the way in which individual universities have chosen to apply or failed to apply the legislation. I shall look to him tonight merely to comment on the lessons that are illustrated by the case that I propose to examine, rather than the merits of that case itself.
It would be helpful to the House if I briefly select from the Education Act 1994 the most relevant provisions dealing with democracy in student unions. Section 22(1) states:
The governing body of every establishment to which this Part applies shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that any students' union for students at the establishment operates in a fair and democratic manner".
Section 22(2)(d) states:
appointment to major union offices should be by election in a secret ballot in which all members are entitled to vote".
The section obviously refers to the concept of a cross-campus ballot, as opposed to the open meeting with votes taken on a show of hands.
Section 22(2)(e) states that
the governing body should satisfy themselves that the elections are fairly and properly conducted".
Section 22(2)(m) states:
there should be a complaints procedure available to all students or groups of students who … are dissatisfied in their dealings with the union … which should include provision for an independent person appointed by the governing body to investigate and report on complaints".
Section 22(2)(n) states:
complaints should be dealt with promptly and fairly and where a complaint is upheld there should be an effective remedy.
That legislation, introduced after much nagging of the previous Government, is good legislation as far as it goes, but the case I am about to outline of the experiences of

Miss Margaret Whelan—who became for a brief period president of the student union at Oxford Brookes university, which is the former Oxford polytechnic—may bring to the Minister's attention doubts that I have about whether it is adequate.
When I have finished recounting Miss Whelan's experience to the House, I shall look to the Minister for answers to five points. First, do the Government support, and intend to retain, the legislation relating to democracy in student unions? Secondly, if so, do they agree that the existing legislation rules out the removal of a student union president who has been elected by a full cross-campus ballot by means of overturning the result on a show of hands at an open meeting? That is what happened in Miss Whelan's case. Thirdly, if the Government feel that the existing legislation does not rule that out, do they agree that that loophole should be closed by amending the Education Act 1994? Fourthly, do the Government agree that the findings of the so-called independent person—the external person to whom, in the final analysis, the student can appeal, as laid down in the Act—should be subject to rejection by the university if it does not like the findings, or is the Government's understanding that the Act means that the verdict of the independent person should be final?
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what suggestions can the Government make for sanctions to be taken against a university that has failed to ensure that the student union has conducted itself in accordance with the provisions of the Act, or for sanctions that the aggrieved student can take against the union if it is in breach of the provisions of the Act? I am conscious that we are talking about young people with few resources, if any, who seldom are able to go to law but who have to take on large, entrenched interests. In contrast, the student unions have significant sums of public money at their disposal with which to fight their battles.
I believe that the provisions of the 1994 Act will remain a dead letter unless students are empowered to enforce them. That might be accomplished by means of a special legal aid provision, where a prima facie case of abuse can be shown to exist. Those are the points to which I look to the Minister to reply.
I turn now to the events at Oxford Brookes university, starting in 1994 when the Act was published. Things began rather well, in fact. The university's deputy vice-chancellor in charge of corporate services, Mr. Brian Summers, prepared a memorandum for the university's board of governors. The memorandum is entitled "Education Act 1994—Students' Unions". It was dated 22 November 1994, and given the reference BG94/101.
The memorandum showed that the board of governors was fully aware—right from the start—of the new obligations in respect of student unions placed upon it by the Act. In particular, paragraph 2 noted:
The first part of the Act requires the Governing Body to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that the Students' Union operates in a fair and democratic manner.
With regard to the 1994 Act's requirement that the governing body should satisfy itself that the elections are "fairly and properly conducted", the memorandum made the following crucial admission:
The rules for the elections, which are a schedule to the existing constitution, are comprehensive and fair. However, the results of an election can be overturned by a general meeting of the Students' Union (which might only involve 200 members) and from the point of view of the Board's duties and responsibilities"—


that means, under the new Act—
this may not be satisfactory.
That is precisely what happened in the case of Margaret Whelan. As for the requirement for a prompt and fair complaints procedure leading to an effective remedy, paragraph 3 of the memorandum, in sub-paragraphs (m) and (n), recommended that complaints should first be made by reference to the president of the student union. The complainant, if dissatisfied, would then be referred to a panel of three staff members appointed by the university's vice-chancellor. Finally, the chairman of the board of governors would, if requested by the complainant, appoint an
independent person … to conduct an inquiry. The person will not be a current student or member of staff with the University, a Governor or other office holder or agent of the University and will be appropriately skilled to deal with complex complaints.
The provisions made it clear that Oxford Brookes university was aware of the need to ensure that any independent person appointed to hold an inquiry into the way in which the university had dealt with a complaint must be untainted by any special motivation to assist the university to avoid the embarrassment of having its handling of that complaint criticised. In other words, the complainant should be able to have confidence that, if the independent person found that the complainant had been denied justice by the university's complaints procedure, that would be fully revealed in the independent person's adjudication.
I now turn to the constitution of the Oxford Brookes student union—OBSU. As has been seen, memorandum BG94/101 admitted that
from the point of view of the Board's duties and responsibilities,
it
may not be satisfactory … that the results of an election can be overturned by a General Meeting of the Student's Union".
Nevertheless, that is precisely what the constitution of the student union continued to permit.
Section 8 of that constitution was divided into clauses dealing with motions of censure and with motions of no confidence. A motion of no confidence was defined as
a detailed motion stating that any [Union Executive Council member or Committee] cannot be relied upon to perform his/her/its duties competently".
If passed, such a motion would "effect immediate dismissal".
As the deputy vice-chancellor's memorandum had recognised, that meant that the outcome of a democratic election, required by section 22 of the 1994 Act to be held
in a secret ballot in which all members are entitled to vote",
could be immediately overturned by a simple majority at a general meeting with a quorum of only 200 students. That made a mockery of the provisions of the Act, which laid statutory duties on the board of governors to ensure that the university student union
operates in a fair and democratic manner".
Five times as many students participated in the ballot that elected Miss Whelan as president of the OBSU as participated shortly afterwards in the meeting that ousted her. Indeed, the general manager of the OBSU and an employee of the union, Miss Catherine Lord, in a letter published in The Oxford Independent in March 1996 commented:

The Student's Union Executive are aware of some anomalies in the Constitution, including parts of it which were outlawed by the 1994 Education Act which took effect in April 1995"—
let us remember that that letter was published in March 1996—
It is not a quick task to re-write a constitution but a Constitution Working Party has been set up to address the issue with a deadline for a final draft to be produced by August 1996.
A memorandum had been produced in autumn 1994, which had been approved by the board of governors. All that was required was the approval and agreement of the student union and it would have been enacted at once in the internal legislation of the university. However, two years later, no move had been made to regularise the constitution, nor was any such move made the following year. In fact, even though the university could have put the constitution of the student union into line with the provisions of the new Act in 1994, it did not happen then and it did not happen in 1995, 1996 or in 1997. Eventually it happened in October 1998. Whether it was pure coincidence that it finally happened at a time when it was becoming apparent to the university that Miss Margaret Whelan was not going to let the matter drop, and that it might be aired in a more public place, is obviously a question of conjecture.
Despite some extremely unpleasant incidents of intimidation, on 4 March 1995, Margaret Whelan won the election in a cross-campus ballot in which more than 1,000 students participated. No sooner had she become president elect—she was not due to take up office until 31 July—than a move was made by a caucus of students to overturn the result of the election by calling an open meeting. Acting alone, she managed to obtain an injunction to stop that disgraceful procedure from taking place. She received practically no support from the university and the student union wasted nearly £800 of public money vainly trying to resist the granting of the injunction.
Margaret took up office as president on 31 July, when most students were away from the college. A new motion of no confidence was therefore tabled for 5 October, which was the earliest practical date at which students might be available on the college campus to come to a meeting and kick her out.
I shall give only one fleeting example of an unpleasant incident, although I have a raft of more horrible examples with which I shall not burden the House. On the morning of the 5 October meeting, Margaret Whelan discovered a message on her ansaphone informing her that the venue for the crucial lunchtime meeting had been changed, allegedly because of the sudden discovery that the advertised room for the open meeting had been double booked. Almost all her supporters thus found themselves in the wrong place because of a failure properly to direct them to the new location. Nevertheless, strangely enough, some 180 of her opponents—just over half the total number that had voted for the candidate whom she had defeated in the cross-campus ballot for the union presidency in March—had somehow managed to come to the new venue for the meeting.
There followed procedural moves to bring the motion of no confidence against Margaret Whelan to the top of the agenda. The proposer and seconder of the motion were allowed to speak for two minutes each; she was allowed a similar period amid constant heckling and the interjection of two purported points of information that


were actually further speeches against her. That 4:1 imbalance was then reinforced by a procedural motion to move straight to a vote, which was of course carried by a large majority.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Disgraceful.

Dr. Lewis: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not having noticed his presence and support until his timely intervention. As he rightly said, the proceedings were indeed disgraceful. By those means, Miss Whelan was ousted from the presidency of the Oxford Brookes student union.
In the few moments remaining to me, I shall state what happened when I became involved in the matter. After Margaret Whelan had been through the complaints procedure, a report eventually came from the independent person who had been appointed to consider the case. That gentleman was Mr. Guy Whalley, who is a retired lawyer, a former senior partner in the London law firm of Freshfields, chair of the governing body of the Royal Academy of Music and chair of the medical services committee of a local health authority. When Mr. Whalley provided his report, it was covered by a letter marked "in strictest confidence". The letter said:
The Report is submitted on the basis that it is strictly confidential to the members of the Board and will not be shown to any other party (including the Complainant). My reason for requesting confidentiality in this way is that the Report does contain sensitive material which, if vouchsafed to a wider audience, could create difficulty, particularly if you and your colleagues decided not to accept any of the Report's recommendations. At some point, however, a summary of the conclusions accepted by the Board will have to be given to the Union and the Complainant.
I have spoken to Mr. Whalley about that, and in his defence he points out that his terms of reference did not mention the 1994 Act. He was asked to report to the university, and only the university, and rightly or wrongly he decided that that was where his obligation lay. It must be said that in none of the internal inquiries into the complaints or the terms of reference as stated to the external independent person was any reference made to the existence of the 1994 Act and its provisions for a complaints procedure.
Finally, I sent a series of 25 questions to Mr. Summers at Oxford Brookes university, having had a long telephone conversation with him, to give him an opportunity to respond, just as Mr. Whalley was given an opportunity to respond. I hope that I have done justice to Mr. Whalley's response in the very brief time available to me. The university's response was, to put it mildly, disappointing. For example, it said:
Your point is that the Board reviewed the Students' Union Constitution in 1994 and identified some elements which might benefit from review, however, it was some time before any changes took place.
Well, one could call four years' continuation of an illegal constitution—four years following the union's identification of what needed to be done to its constitution to make it legal—some time. The letter continued:
While it is difficult to accurately account"—
that is a nice split infinitive—
for delays so many years on, these were in part occasioned by a genuine desire on the part of the Union to be thorough in redrafting and the need to secure the support of a quorate general meeting for

any changes … The Board had noted that the power of the general meeting to overturn the decisions of a Returning Officer in an election might not be satisfactory, but it had not considered that the removal of an officer by a general meeting required amendment.
The truth of the matter was, as Mr. Summers had revealed to me in his telephone conversation, that the board had actually approved the recommendations of his own memorandum—BG94/101—but the union had refused to go along with it and left the whole process in suspension for four years.
In this little David-and-Goliath battle, we have had arrayed on one side a caucus of student hacks, a distinguished board of university governors and an eminent independent person. Ranged against all of them was a 20-year-old recently orphaned undergraduate whose sole offence was fairly and squarely to win an election in a campus-wide democratic ballot. All of those whom I have mentioned succeeded between them in depriving her of her presidency; but, in my opinion, she succeeded in putting all of them to shame.

Mr. Winterton: They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Dr. Lewis: Indeed they ought.
I end on a more positive note: although those gentlemen remain in their eminent positions, I will be happy to be witnessing next Friday the wedding of Miss Margaret Whelan to her fiancé. I am sure that the whole house, in recognition of Miss Whelan's courage, if for no other reason, wishes her and Mr. Mark harper every future happiness.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. George Mudie): I join the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) in wishing the young lady a very long and happy wedding.

Dr. Lewis: Marriage.

Mr. Mudie: Wedding is the same as marriage.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me a brief opportunity to reply to a debate on the importance of student unions, their conduct and accountability, and the mechanism for independent consideration and complaints against them. I am also pleased to place on record the courtesy with which he approached my office to inform me of the basis of the debate.
I expect the hon. Gentleman to accept that there is no way that I would intervene in a specific case. Although he feels very strongly about an individual case, which may be appropriate, it has been dealt with through agreed procedures under an Act that was passed by the previous Government. What matters is not the individual case but the questions of principle that it raises. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that, given the time, I shall attempt to answer the five general questions that he raised concerning the young lady. I have a long spiel, but very little time to give it, so I shall go straight to the reforms introduced by the Education Act 1994, which govern the election of officers to student unions.
Student reforms passed under the 1994 Act had the support of the House. Their stated aims were to secure choice, fairness and accountability in student unions.


As the hon. Gentleman knows, one of the key reforms of the 1994 Act was to give students the right to opt out of student union membership if they so wished. As he will know, very few students take up that option. Student unions are also required to hold referendums to decide whether to continue to be affiliated to the National Union of Students. Again, the Act does not seem to be persuading student unions not to become affiliated to the NUS. Time after time, students vote overwhelmingly to remain affiliated.
The 1994 Act introduced other reforms that specifically govern some of the matters touched on by the hon. Gentleman—elections to the offices of student unions, their conduct and the procedure for dealing with complaints against them. First, each student union must have a written constitution, which must be agreed by the university's governing body, and it must act in accordance with it. All elections to a major student union office must be carried out by secret ballot, in which all union members are allowed to vote. Each institution where there is a student union covered by the 1994 Act must have a framework, governed by a code of practice, for considering promptly and fairly any complaint about the conduct of the student union. That includes the right to have a complaint investigated by an "independent person".
It is now nearly five years since the 1994 Act came into force, and we are not aware of any significant problems in its operation. The provisions that became the 1994 Act were, of course, fully debated in both Houses. During the Bill's passage, several amendments were made by the then Government. For example, a proposal in the Bill that governing bodies must have regard to written guidance from the Secretary of State for Education when preparing their codes of practice—something that the hon. Gentleman might find attractive now—was specifically dropped by the then Government. That would have allowed the Secretary of State to intervene or give guidance on the preparation of codes of practice for the conduct of student unions.
The proposal that complaints about the actions of a student union should be considered by an independent person—rather than the institution's own governing

body—was introduced by a Government amendment. The Government spokesman in the other place added the provision of an "independent person" to the Bill during the House of Lords Committee debate, to give students the confidence that they would be dealt with fairly. It is clear that the provisions of the 1994 Act were carefully considered by both Houses during debate and tightened up, to avoid any potential loopholes, by amendments by the then Government.
The current framework is designed to ensure fairness, transparency and an independent mechanism by which a student can seek redress. First, all elections to major student union offices must be carried out by secret ballot. The student union must have and follow a written constitution, and follow the institution's governing body's code of practice on its conduct. That must be regularly revised. After a suitable period had passed, the 1994 Act was revised. As a result of that revision, students must be informed about the requirements of the code of practice at least once a year.
Individual students or groups of students who opt out of the union—as is their right—are protected from discrimination by the unions.
An aggrieved student has the right to complain to an independent person, who reports to the governing body on the complaint. The 1994 Act requires the governing body to deal with complaints promptly and fairly, and to provide an effective remedy where a complaint is upheld.
In the one remaining minute, I shall try to answer the five questions that the hon. Gentleman asked. Do the Government support the retention of the legislation? Yes; we do. Is it true that existing legislation rules out the removal, by an open meeting, of officers elected by secret ballot? No; it is for the university code of practice and union procedures to decide. That was allowed for in the Conservative Government's 1994 Act. Is that a loophole? No; it gives student unions freedom, which they are clearly using with good sense. Should the findings of—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past Eleven o'clock.